A
day without sunshine is like, you know, night.
-
Steve Martin
Education is unique among
consumer products; when it fails to work as advertised,
it's the customer that gets labeled as defective.
- Kevin Killion
Please download
for
best results in using this website.
Next time you save a box top, or write a donation check, think about this:
One school district, one child,
one parent at a time,
Private attorneys retained by school districts get RICH, RICH, RICH ...
$58
million dollars.
The laws designed to protect our children are being manipulated by a
cottage industry of private attorneys who have found a cash-cow opportunity to use the public's education tax dollars to
enrich
themselves
by
battling
the
rights
of Texas schoolchildren.
In 06-07, according to the Texas Education Agency, Texas public schools spent more than
$58,000,000 on private attorneys.
Fifty-eight million tax dollars that the people of Texas thought were going to educate children
were
diverted
to private law firms.
We
must
find a
way to
stop the
flow of
education
dollars
from
public
school
districts,
without
limit or
accountability,
into the
pockets of
private
attorneys
who
benefit
while
children
suffer.
This fiscal accountability issue affects each and every Texas taxpayer.
The average per pupil
expenditures on legal expenses
is $12 per student versus Eanes
ISD $60.00 per student.
Eanes ISD retains yet another private law firm, this time a legal "boutique"
...
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Date:
January 28, 2009
Board Action #:
004/09
Subject:
Agreement For Provision of Legal Services
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the Superintendent’s recommendation that the Board authorize the Superintendent to engage Thompson & Horton, LLP as an additional firm to provide legal services to the District during the 2008-2009 school year.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On an annual basis each September, coinciding with the District’s fiscal calendar, the District has implemented a practice of presenting the list of law firms providing outside legal services to Eanes ISD. At the Board meeting of September 2008, the following firms were retained to provide outside legal services to the District:
Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P.
McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, L.L.P.
Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.
Feldman & Rogers, L.L.P., and
Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, P.C.
Since that time, however, certain attorneys formerly associated with Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P. have departed from that firm and have formed a new law firm: Thompson & Horton, LLP. The firm of Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P. is not being replaced by this proposed action. Thompson & Horton, LLP is being added as a new, additional firm to provide legal services to the District.
A proposed engagement letter was provided to the District by Thompson & Horton, LLP so that the District may continue to use the services of particular attorneys, as needed, for the balance of the school year. Thompson & Horton, LLP will also be included in the list of law firms to be brought to the Board for approval in September 2009.
Eanes ISD - Education Tax Dollars
The
following is only a
sampling of the
district's 2007 and 2008
legal expenses:
70670
WALSH AN000 WALSH, ANDERSON, BROWN, SCHULZ R 10/27/2006
$600.00
71899
WALSH AN000 WALSH, ANDERSON, BROWN, SCHULZ R 12/15/2006
$11,430.44
72473 WALSH AN000 WALSH,
ANDERSON, BROWN, SCHULZ R 01/19/2007
$38,153.22
73541
WALSH AN000 WALSH, ANDERSON, BROWN, SCHULZ R 02/22/2007
$4,615.71
96824
07/12/2007
37,331.22
WALSH, ANDERSON, BRO 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services
through May 15, 2007
07/12/2007
68,207.05
WALSH, ANDERSON, BRO 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services - May
1, 2007
97445
08/23/2007
1,857.71
WALSH, ANDERSON, BRO 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services
Through July 2007
96806 07/12/2007
17,025.00 STERN, WILLIAM
PHD 199 E 41 6211 00 732
0 00 000 as of 06-29-07
Legal Services -
Special Education Due Process
101326
01/24/2008 6,381.14
FELDMAN & ROGERS, L. 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services
through October 31, 2007
101368 01/24/2008 625.00
MCGINNIS,LOCHRIDGE & 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services for
October and November
2007
101368 01/24/2008
2,200.00
MCGINNIS,LOCHRIDGE & 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services for
October and November
2007
101463 01/24/2008
13,503.01 WALSH,
ANDERSON, BRO 199 E 41
6211 00 732 0 00 000
Legal Services through
November 15, 2007
101574 01/31/2008
5,739.65 FELDMAN &
ROGERS, L. 199 E 41 6211
00 732 0 00 000 Legal
Services for November
and December, 2007
01/31/2008 5,456.25
FELDMAN & ROGERS, L. 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services for
November and December,
2007
01/31/2008 4,340.00
FELDMAN & ROGERS, L. 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services for
November
and December, 2007
01/31/2008 4,346.07
FELDMAN & ROGERS, L. 199
E 41 6211 00 732 0 00
000 Legal Services for
November and December,
2007
8/8/8 - Abuse of tax dollars continues in protracted legal proceedings with Ft. Bend
ISD.
August 8, 2008 - Unfortunately, abuse of school tax dollars and retaliation against parents and children is a pattern across our state. The public school districts, their professional lobbyists, and all of the private “education” agencies (such as TASB) are quite effective in getting out the “great things happen every day in public education” message. Unfortunately, children who are not served well in public school and are even harmed by attendance, and the parents who must face certain retaliation just for speaking up … are not so well represented. And parents can’t access the public tax dollars that the public school administrators use (without limit or accountability) to retain private law firms to battle against the needs and rights of children with disabilities.
The stories shared by Greg Groogan are an important balance to the district’s message. Unfortunately, too many children who don’t “fit the mold” are being damaged and/or pushed out of public school … while at the same time public school lobbyists and administrations tell the public that “all children matter.”
RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR?
Recently, the Texas
Education Agency (TEA) investigated a complaint from an
Eanes ISD parent who alleged that Eanes ISD and its agent,
a private attorney from the law firm Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schultze, and
Aldridge (WABSA) disclosed a child's confidential
information. (2008)
The TEA found that:
" ... representatives
of the LEA (Local Educational Agency - in this case Eanes
ISD and its highly paid private attorneys)
demonstrated what could be viewed as
reckless behavior ..."
However, as usual, TEA let Eanes "off the hook" with a simple reminder:
" ... TEA again
reminds the
Eanes ISD legal representatives (in this case
Walsh, Anderson, Brown Schultze and Aldridge) of their
obligation to protect information related to student
information."
This complaint
and several others alleging continuing disclosure of
confidential student records are presently under formal
investigation by the U.S. Department of Education in Washington,
D.C.
Eanes ISD has been
found out of compliance with confidentiality laws (by TEA
and the U.S. Department of Education) on a
number of occasions in the past five years related to the
district's repeated disclosure of confidential student
records. Each time, the district has retained private
attorneys funded by school tax dollars to ... as some would
say ... "defend the district against the indefensible."
July 11, 2008 -
Note: The attached documents
are only a SAMPLE of the legal
expenditures associated with the
district's certification complaint
against the teaching license of this
award-winning educator.
When you donate to EEF, the
district can continue hiring private attorneys ...
instead of teachers.
Here we go again. Feldman & Rogers (also Eanes ISD private attorneys)
Failed and Bullied by Texas Public Schools - Christian Bennett's Story - $103,000 to Feldman & Rogers to beat this child.
"They bring out the big guns. They bring out high dollar law firms to fight the parents." The strategy is both simple and effective: "We're scare the hell out of them and we'll keep them from getting into your wallet." - Louis Geigerman, Advocate
Rethink special education
The current special-education system is an arrangement that only lawyers could love. It creates rights that can only be enforced in court — if then. It creates conflict between families and schools. It is all about process and not about results. Adding vouchers to the mix changes all of that by giving families an alternative mechanism for getting what they need, reducing costs and conflict, and ensuring better results for all disabled students.
Introduction:
Rethink
special
education
-
In a
three-part
series
beginning
today
on
our
Op-Ed
page,
the
authors
of
the
report,
Marcus
A.
Winters
and
Jay
P.
Greene,
explain
the
effects
of
Florida's
McKay
voucher/special
education
program,
and
why
parents
view
vouchers
and
special
education
as a
good
match
—
"more
than
90
percent
of
parents
participating
in
the
McKay
program
report
that
they
are
satisfied
or
very
satisfied,
while
about
a
third
of
them
were
similarly
satisfied
with
their
previous
public
school."
In
the
third
installment
that
will
be
published
Thursday,
the
authors
look
at
vouchers
and
special
education
through
the
lens
of
the
federal
government
and
presidential
politics,
encouraging
"a
fresh
approach
to
school
choice
that
would
allow
parents
of
disabled
students
to
use
federal
special
education
dollars
in
any
public
or
private
school
they
see
fit."
Part
1:
Vouchers
and
special
education
- by
Marcus
A.
Winters
and
Jay
P.
Greene
April
29,
2008
Part
2:
Vouchers
for
special-ed
students
- by
Marcus
A.
Winters
and
Jay
P.
Greene
-
April
30,
2008
Part 3: The politics of special-ed voucher - by Marcus A. Winters and Jay P. Greene - May 1, 2008
Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schultz and Aldridge (Eanes ISD private attorneys)
Greg Groogan’s latest story on the school
district attorneys and special education in
public school: It's become all too common
for public schools and parents to
fight over what should and shouldn't be done
for a special needs child. FOX in Focus, Greg
Groogan shows just how far one Texas
district was willing to go to get its way.
Unfortunately, this story is all too familiar.
May 4, 2007
It happens everyday in
Texas. Legal hardball aimed
squarely at the parents of
special needs kids. These
are Moms and Dads just
trying to stop their
children from being
shortchanged by school
districts who claim to be
too financially hard pressed
to deliver the specialized
instruction and services
these children need.
Instead many of
these professed educators
confer with attorneys, draw
a legal line in the sand and
begin waging a battle of
attrition against
parents who push too
hard. The bitter irony is
that families brave enough
to engage in these
regulatory and legal
marathons are
fought by lawyers paid with
the parents OWN tax dollars.
How bad does it get ?
Dripping Springs I.S.D.
rejected an offer to settle
with the parents of Lathom
Yeaman. They asked for
$25,000 - enough money to
pay a private school to do
the job the public school
refused to do. The school
district said no - and
proceeded to spend
$400,000
on attorneys fees to
stifle the Yeaman's efforts
to get their son the "free
and appropriate" education
he's entitled to by law.
Does that seem fair ? Does
that sound like good
stewardship of public
dollars ? Does that, at it's
core, do right by a boy
challenged with autism,
attention deficit and
dyslexia ?
Karen Yeaman says "it's
about power and money and
the law firms that control
and run the school
districts."
Walsh
Anderson Brown Schultze and Aldridge
benefits greatly from our public school tax dollars.
Let the PARTY begin!
Having
trouble obtaining a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
for your child with disabilities? *
Does your
child need an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) as
required by federal law? *
Apparently, your child's needs and rights
are sometimes just a BIG
JOKE.
*
FAPE, a federal
educational rights for children with disabilities is a
"Free Appropriate Public Education", not
"Firewater, Alcoholic Potions &
Elixirs"
as our tax-funded attorneys like to joke,
all in good
fun of course.
Bottom
line: Our education dollars are
funding these attorneys (and their idea of
FAPE) instead of funding FAPE for our
children. Cause for celebration?
Duckey Luckey
played by public school Lead Speech
Therapist Bobbye Records ---
Grapevine-Colleyville ISD
TIP #1:
Got Money For Good Attorney?
TIP #6:
Courage to
eliminate those who get in the way?
Need a little extraordinary and entertaining reading?
At taxpayer expense, of course ...
Click here to review the publications for sale by Eanes ISD private attorneys Walsh, Anderson, Schultze, Brown and Aldridge including these:
THE ADVENTURES OF ARD MAN: SEVEN STEPS TOWARD EFFECTIVE ARD MEETINGS - ARD Man lays out seven critically important steps toward improving the Admissions, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee process in an extraordinary and enlightening DVD. (38 Minutes)
SECTION 504: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES - Join Jim Walsh and his guests for a highly informative and entertaining excursion through the intricacies of Section 504. (47 Minutes)
WHERE ARE OUR SCHOOL TAX DOLLARS GOING?
Announcing: The Eanes ISD Job Program for Private
Attorneys
During the latter part of 2007, Eanes ISD retained
private attorneys to submit a
complaint against an award-winning
physics teacher who had served our district well for
decades. KeepEanesInformed covered that issue and
eventually the district agreed to withdraw the complaint
(click here
to learn if that ever happened.) So, while working
hard to win a complaint against this outstanding
educator, the same law firm was busy at work
"investigating" this site (while we were busy at work
covering this issue - is there a connection here?)
The legal invoices below ($1200.00) characterize me as
an "individual not
affiliated with the district." In truth, my
affiliations with this district are numerous including
parent, volunteer, and taxpayer.
Further, Feldman & Rogers describes my site's email
address as "deceptively similar to the district's email
address." Deceptively similar? Are they
joking? So, to clear up any confusion: Yes,
the email address references the very same Eanes ISD
that is the subject of this site, KeepEanesInformed.
Meanwhile, I appreciate the communications I received
from Eanes ISD community members, employees, students,
and other citizens from around Texas. Happily,
they were all well aware that the email address
belongs to KeepEanesInformed related to this website
since it began in October 2003:
eanes_isd@hotmail.com. Every person who
contacted this site also understood my "affiliation"
with the district.
And about this "Job Program for Private Attorneys"
funded by our school tax dollars? It's
thriving all over Texas! In October 2007, Feldman
& Rogers was also hard at work suing a citizen in
Galveston who maintains a site about the operations of
her community school district. Click here to see
the letter that finally preceded the withdrawal of that
lawsuit:
Attorney Responds to David Feldman's Demand Letter.
They stay real busy
helping
school districts withhold public information from
the public, too. Maybe Eanes ISD should focus on
the district's apparent
inability to effectively manage bond projects
instead.
And I'll let you know if I ever receive that $1200.00
letter. In fact, I'll post it! Visit this
site's page on
Private
Law Firms to learn more about the "Job Program."
Walsh,
Anderson, Brown, Schultz and Aldridge
(Eanes ISD private attorneys)
How
much money have these districts
deposited into the pockets of private
law firms funded with our tax dollars
to battle against the rights of
children?
During the summer of 2006, I recognized
that the Lake Travis ISD leadership was
violating the privacy rights of children
in that district.
Background:
Eanes ISD published and publicly
distributed my child's confidential
information including medical
information ... yes, more than once.
When the district denied my formal
complaint "within" the district, I
complained to the U.S. Department of
Education. That federal agency
issued an adverse finding against Eanes
ISD and how did the district respond?
By hiring private attorneys funded by
our tax dollars to battle against my
child's privacy rights. Yes, the
district appealed the adverse
finding. Still, the U.S.
Department of Education confirmed the
adverse finding against the district.
Want to learn more about the school
district's reaction to open government
and advocacy for a child?
Click here.
So
when I discovered the Lake Travis ISD
(also represented by private attorneys
funded by our tax dollars) distribution
of confidential education records of
children on its website, I took action
and submitted a formal complaint to the
Lake Travis ISD Board.
Like Eanes ISD, Lake Travis ISD retained
a private law firm funded by tax
dollars.
Like Eanes ISD, the Lake Travis board
denied my formal complaint "within" the
district.
Like Eanes ISD, Lake Travis ISD
responded to my subsequent formal
complaint with an outside agency by
continuing to retain tax-funded
attorneys to battle against the private
rights of children.
Like Eanes ISD, when Lake Travis ISD
received an adverse finding from the
Texas Education Agency, the district
continued to spend education tax dollars
to retain those same private attorneys
and continue to battle the rights of
children.
Like Eanes ISD, Lake Travis ISD lost its
appeal. I did not retain an
attorney and yet, won both complaint
against the two Central Texas districts
and their tax-funded private law firms.
Read more about the LTISD issue here ...
the following excerpts courtesy of
www.ltisd.info.
The
private law firm,
FELDMAN & ROGERS,
that profited from this
lawsuit also benefits
greatly from Eanes ISD
education tax dollars.
Klein
ISD sues mom over evaluation request
By Jennifer Radcliffe
Angela
Harris acknowledges her relationship
with the Klein school district is
tumultuous. She's been fighting for
years to get extra help for her
12-year-old son, who has special
needs. Still, she was stunned when
she learned earlier this year that
the northwest Harris County district
was suing her.
Rather than
pay for the independent evaluation
that Harris requested, the district
took her to "due process," a legal
proceeding used to resolve
special-education disputes.
"It's a very uncomfortable situation
and it is not a cost-efficient way
of doing things," said Harris, whose
son, Marshall, was born with a type
of brain injury called
periventricular leukomalacia. "Klein
has abused their authority to
oversee tax dollars."
District spokeswoman Liz Johnson
said the matter cost about $20,000
to $25,000 in legal fees. On top of
that, the state spent roughly
$13,000 to provide a judge and
court reporter for the two-day
proceeding, Texas Education Agency
officials said.
A lawyer for
the district estimated that it would
cost a fraction of that — between
$500 to $1,500 — to perform the test
the mother requested.
While
these cases are rare — 23 of last
year's 341 due process hearings in
Texas were filed by school districts
— parents and advocates fear that
districts may increasingly opt to
take parents to court to intimidate
them, and others, from insisting on
the services they believe their
children need.
Feeling
overmatched
It's another
frustrating roadblock for parents of
Texas' estimated 500,000
special-education students, said
Louis Geigerman, a Houston-area
advocate for special-education
students. Parents in such
situations, he said, often find
themselves overmatched by school
districts' high-priced attorneys.
"They would rather litigate
than provide services. That's the
theme," Geigerman said. "They need
to look at a cost-benefit analysis
when they want to litigate, for
$20,000 or $40,000, something that
would cost less than $5,000."
She asked district officials to drop
the case, but they refused, leaving
her to represent herself. Feeling
overwhelmed, she said, she sought
legal advice from area nonprofit and
advocacy groups. She was frustrated
to find that no one could help her.
Harris' troubles with the
district started when her son
brought home straight F's in the
first grade. Despite her pleas, she
said, the district was slow to offer
extra help.
After Harris
filed a complaint with the Texas
Education Agency, Klein was ordered
to provide Marshall more than 50
hours of extra tutoring for writing.
He is still struggling in class and
on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills, however, which prompted
Harris torequest another round of
tests.
"The law tells you
you're entitled to different things,
but no one tells you what to do when
it doesn't happen," Harris said. "I
never thought advocacy could end me
up in due process."
The Fort Bend
Independent School
District board of
trustees voted at
Monday night’s
meeting to terminate
the Feldman & Rogers
law firm, long-time
outside legal
counsel for the
district. The motion
passed 4-1-1 with
trustee Cynthia Knox
voting no and Sue
Hauenstein
abstaining.
David Feldman,
Feldman & Rogers
principal,
interrupted the
proceedings to
demand an
explanation for the
firm’s termination.
At one point,
Feldman said, “you
don’t have to fire
us, we resign.” He
later recanted and
said, “No, go ahead
and finish your vote
and fire us.”
The report focused
on
several alleged
improprieties
by Associate
Superintendent of
Business and Finance
Charles Dupre, and
also found
significant fault
with actions
by FBISD
Superintendent Betty
Baitland, inside
FBISD counsel
Bernadette Gonzalez,
outside counsel
David Feldman,
and FBISD Risk
Manager John
Griffin.
SUMMER 2006
--- Eanes ISD hires
Bernadette Gonzalez
as inside counsel
and David Feldman as
outside counsel.
School district must divorce its lawyers
Note:
Feldman & Rogers is also an
Eanes ISD private law firm.
The Daily News
- Published February 24, 2008
Excerpt:
Galveston
school trustees should find a new law firm.
At issue is the revelation that
Superintendent Lynne Cleveland used the
district’s firm, Feldman and Rogers, in
October to file a divorce petition.
Nichols is describing the good-old-boy
system. Never mind that the legal advice
often is bad and always is more expensive; I
do you favors from time to time.
Nichols doesn’t even understand who his
client is. It’s not Cleveland, who got the
favor, nor is it the school board. It’s the
legal entity called Galveston Independent
School District. Nor does he understand that
doing favors from time to time for your
client’s employees is by definition “giving
a benefit to someone to induce them to give
you something.” That something being the
district’s lucrative legal business.
For the record, David Feldman repudiated
Nichols’ comment, saying the firm does not
do favors for clients. The public record
says otherwise, however.
The
taxpayers deserve better than this firm
appears equipped to provide.
Officials with the
public school district have blamed high
legal costs on lawsuits, open records
requests, an epic federal desegregation
lawsuit and personnel issues. Under the
recommendation of Feldman and Rogers,
trustees also sought, then dropped, legal
action against a blogger they accused of
defamation.
Galveston public
school district in 2006-07 paid Feldman and
Rogers $99,639.67, according to school
district records.
This year, the
district has paid almost $150,000 to the
firm. Earlier this month, administrators
attempted to almost double the district’s
legal budget, but the attempts were met with
skepticism by Mytelka.
Mytelka, who
is an attorney, refused to vote in favor of
a budget amendment that would increase the
budget for the firm by $117,500 from
$150,000 to $267,500.
“I think we
need to exercise a little more control,”
Mytelka said then. “I would like to approve
the bills before the check is cut.”
Katy ISD
Watchdogs response
here: Let me clue all
of you into something; taxpayers in this
state are angry and they are getting angrier
every single day. Our ranks are
growing daily as more and more taxpayers
begin to come out of their apathetic stupor
and begin to realize what is REALLY going on
in their school districts. We are
tired of wasteful, irresponsible and
sometimes fraudulent school district
spending. We are sick of “blank check”
bond initiatives that only encourage
wasteful, irresponsible and sometimes
fraudulent school spending. We’re
tired of school districts operating deficit
budgets. But most of all we are really
weary of school districts “passing the hat”
before they have made absolutely sure that
their own economic house is in order.
David
Feldman:
“It’s
like you’ve been figuratively raped,” he
told the newspaper, somehow failing to add
“But then again, it’s obvious I don’t know
what the hell I’m talking about.”
Galveston ISD
Threatens to Sue Watchdog Group Thu
Oct 25, 2007 Houston Press blog
comments
here.
The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on
Public School Achievement:
Comment:
This report shows some clear evidence that
vouchers do not negatively impact students
with disabilities that remain in the public
school system vs. taking the vouchers to
attend private placements. In fact,
the report indicates that the students in
the public school system showed significant
progress academically because of the option
for school choice. And this report breaks
down data by area of disability.
“Our
results from evaluating
Florida’s McKay program provide
additional evidence that rather than being
harmed, public schools respond to the
challenge of exposure to school choice by
improving the education they provide. These
findings are consistent with most previous
research, which demonstrates school-choice
policies’ positive effect on public school
achievement.”
This
paper evaluates the impact of exposure to a
voucher program for disabled students in
Florida on the academic
performance of disabled students who remain
in the public school system. The authors
utilize student-level data on the universe
of public school students in the state of
Florida from 2000-01 through 2004-05 to
study the effect of the largest school
voucher program in the United States, the
McKay Scholarship Program for Students with
Disabilities (McKay), on achievement in math
and reading by students who have been
diagnosed as disabled and remain in the
public school system.
This
paper is the first empirical evaluation of
the impact of exposure to a voucher program
designed to allow students with disabilities
to enroll in schools other than their local
public schools on the achievement of
disabled students who remain in their local
public schools. Vouchers for disabled
students are the fastest-growing type in the
United States. Programs similar
to McKay are currently operating in
Ohio,
Georgia, and
Utah and have been recently
considered by other states.
Full Article Here
Highlights of the study include:
Public school students with relatively
mild disabilities made statistically
significant test score improvements in
both math and reading as more nearby
private schools began participation in
the McKay program. That is, contrary to
the hypothesis that school choice harms
students who remain in public schools,
this study finds that students eligible
for vouchers who remained in the public
schools made greater academic
improvements as their school choices
increased.
Disabled
public school students’ largest gains as
exposure to McKay increased were made by
those diagnosed as having the mildest
learning disabilities. The largest
category of students enjoying the
greatest gains, known as Specific
Learning Disability, accounts for 61.2%
of disabled students and 8.5% of all
students in
Florida.
The
academic proficiency of students
diagnosed with relatively severe
disabilities was neither helped nor
harmed by increased exposure to the
McKay program.
The
Galveston ISD has locked horns with a
taxpayer watchdog group over what the
district calls "defamatory" statements
made on the group's website.
The lawyer for the district, David
Feldman, says his client has no problem
with the existence of the "GISD Watch,"
but he says anonymous bloggers on their
site have been making "libelous
statements" about bosses at the district
for quite some time.
In a
letter to the operator of "GISD Watch,"
Sandra Tetley, Feldman asks her to take
down blog postings that falsely accuse
bosses at the school district of crimes.
Feldman says the school district will
take Tetley to court if she doesn't do
what he's asking.
Listen
to my interview with Mr. Feldman here:
Tetley received the letter from
Feldman on Tuesday afternoon and talked
to me about it shortly after that.
She says what this is really all about
is school administrators who are unable
to handle it when citizens criticize the
way their tax dollars are being
spent. Listen to my interview with
Tetley here:
If you'd like to check out the
website for yourself and decide whether
it's appropriate, click
here.
One
school district, one child, one citizen at a
time ... PRIVATE attorneys get RICH, RICH,
RICH ...
Learn more
about SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation or
Lawsuit Against Public Participation)
Note to the Reader:
"Retaliation: A Primer" and
the "Retaliation Triangle"
were originally published in
The Observer, a newsletter
published by the Sacramento
LDA.
retaliation, n.-Syn. vengeance,
reprisal, punishment; see
revenge
Retaliation against parents
is a taboo topic in special
education. No one knows how
wide spread it is, or how
often it occurs. Yet,
wherever parents gather and
whenever parents talk among
themselves, the topic of
retaliation receives lively
attention. The focus of this
essay is on parents;
however, retaliation is not
limited to parents alone.
Anyone who advocates for
children can become the
target of retaliation. (click
here to read about
Pamella Settlegoode,
adaptive PE teacher, who
sued her Portland, Oregon
school district for
retaliation and won a one
million dollar verdict that
was upheld on appeal).
Retaliation is the act of
using official resources to
"punish" parents. It can
take many forms. It is not,
technically, a crime and it
can be difficult to detect.
(Note: This is not correct.
Retaliation is defined and
prohibited by the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Click here for the legal
definition of Retaliation
from the ADA)
However, the underlying
"causes" of retaliation are
no mystery. There are two
key ingredients: power and
accountability - too much of
the former and not enough of
the later. The mechanism
that seems to trigger
retaliation is effective
advocacy.
Retaliation occurs in an
environment where school
officials view IDEA as an
unwanted imposition or as a
way to develop a power base.
In this setting the job is
not to fully implement IDEA.
Instead, school officials
translate their
responsibilities and duties
to children and families
into unquestioned decision
making power over them. The
profile of such officials
can take two forms: openly
hostile or smoothly
deceptive, the latter
preferring passive
aggressive resistance.
Hostile officials on the
other hand use their
position as an instrument of
power to openly intimidate
and even punish parents.
Many
parents never encounter
retaliation. Those that do
however, are usually strong
advocates for their
children. Regardless,
retaliation does occur and
the fear of retaliation
inhibits many parents. This
affords school officials
wide latitude to implement
IDEA and the ADA as they see
fit.
The Retaliation Triangle
Patterns of Retaliation
Like
the food triangle, patterns
of retaliation can be
classified into three
levels. Level I, the most
frequent, is low-level
passive activity, with the
goal of delaying the
process. Level II is more
overt; the goal is to scare
parents. Level III is the
form of open hostility and
the goal is to punish
parents. Level III
retaliation is rare, but
costly, dramatic, and
damaging.
Level I - Delay.The goal at this level of
retaliation is to reduce
parent effectiveness by
passive resistance, such as
the introduction of delays
and obstacles in the many
processes involved in
special education. There are
numerous ways officials can
achieve this result.
One is
simply playing dumb. This
allows officials to
effectively ignore the law
and parent rights under the
law. Another is "forgetting"
to do things. An official
may repeatedly forget to
follow-up on a commitment,
such as getting back to
parents with further
information, or fail to
schedule further meetings
without several reminders.
Being "away from the phone,"
so often that parents give
up on some important issue
is also effective.
Yet
another technique is overly
technical interpretations of
laws and regulations. Level
I does not appear hostile,
but it can be extremely
effective.
Level II - Fear.
Level II retaliation is not
hidden. At this stage
officials may appear to be
openly frustrated and
hostile. They will state
that they won't for example,
allow parents to observe a
class, or won't permit
certain kinds of testing.
The list of "can't do's" is
quite long. Most of it
however, is bluff.
Level II retaliation is
based on putting up a tough
front in an effort to scare
parents and reduce their
advocacy. It is predicated
on parental ignorance of the
law. While it can be very
effective, parents can break
through this barrier by
learning more about special
education laws and
regulations and simply
insisting on compliance.
Once past the obstacles,
parents usually find that
resistance is eliminated.
Level III - Punishment.
At this level, retaliation
can get ugly, with school
officials openly threatening
and actively trying to
punish parents.
In this
war-like state, school
officials have a variety of
weapons to choose from. One
is the fair hearing (due
process hearing) process.
Schools have vast financial
resources to transform
hearings into major
trial-like proceedings.
Since there is no
accountability to taxpayers
for the large sums spent in
such legal adventures,
officials have free rein to
spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars. (See the
Hamilton County TN v.
Zachary Deal case,
where the school district
spent at least 2.8 million
dollars on attorneys' fees
to fight parents of a child
with autism.)
Aiding
and abetting this practice
is a network of attorneys
who specialize in fighting
parents. These attorneys are
organized into a
professional group which
holds national conferences
and training programs at the
local level. School
officials are invited to
attend these conferences
where they are tutored in
the finer points of
"aggressive action," in the
form of strategies to be
used before an IEP meeting
or at the pre-hearing
conference of a due process
or fair hearing.
There
have been recent reports of
a menacing new form of
retaliation involving the
fabrication of child abuse
charges against the target
parent. Such allegations can
trigger an investigation by
Child Protective Services
which has police-like
powers. Pending the outcome
of their investigation, they
may choose to remove
children from the home.
Level III is so serious that
most parents need an
attorney to protect
themselves.
Note: "Retaliation: A
Primer" and the "Retaliation
Triangle" were originally
published in The Observer, a
newsletter published by the
Sacramento LDA (Spring
1998). This link is no
longer active.
However, this article and
more information about
retaliation for advocacy are
available here (see
"Enemies List" Targets
Parents.)
This complaint
and several others alleging continuing disclosure of
confidential student records are presently under formal
investigation by the U.S. Department of Education in Washington,
D.C. 
