...If any cost/benefit analysis is performed prior to sending a matter to outside counsel, that effort is completely hidden from view. In an illustrative recent case, MCPS spent $12,000 in outside legal to contest a parent's request for an lEE (independent educational evaluation) that would have cost the school system $2,500.
MCPS, which likes to imagine itself an educational leader, spent 12 years under Jerry Weast dismantling options along the special education services continuum, and Weast's hardball tactics against the parents of kids with disabilities appear to have continued under Starr... footnotes from page 2 of document shown below.
Dedicated to improving responsiveness and performance of Montgomery County Public Schools
Pages
▼
Thursday, March 14, 2013
"Weast's hardball tactics...appear to have continued under Starr"
Public Comment of Montgomery County attorney Karen Smith presented to Montgomery County Council's Education Committee on March 11, 2013, regarding litigation in MCPS special education disputes.
Starr sounds confused and ill-informed! During Tuesday’s BOE discussion of the Burden of Proof Bills (SB691 & HB1286) he said he’d heard anecdotes but that he wanted the information from the individuals involved. He’s asking parents of special needs students who have had problems with due process hearings, mediation, etc., to email him and tell him what happened. I encourage those parents to also send their redacted accounts of the problems to this Blog.
ReplyDeleteI sent Dr. Starr a long letter about my situation and he just passed it on to Mrs. Richardson. The response was friendly but hollow. Although MCPS continues to espouse that they will try to mediate and resolve complaints early, my experience was just the opposite. Once we disagreed and hired a private attorney, the cooperative adventure with the parent ended. When I asked for someone to step in, I was told they could not intervene as we had filed for a due process hearing. Instead, the costly route was chosen by MCPS. I hear that MCPS wants to resolve issues but my experience was that they wanted to proceed with the legal arguments to win their case and set a precedent.
ReplyDeleteSuperintendent Starr says he never hears from anyone. What makes you think Starr actually saw your letter?
DeleteStarr may not be getting his mail. It may be getting screened by his personal staff. He's using the same people that Weast used. No reason to believe they aren't doing the exact same thing that they did for Weast.
Well, I cornered him at a meeting and mentioned my communication. Therefore, he has no excuse for stating he did not have a chance to read it. I do agree that his staff likely screened out my letter. So, he has no basis, in my opinion, to state he doesn't hear from his customers. Again, I think MCPS administrators have ample time to intervene on disputes before they become appeals. They claim they are doing so, but in my case, they closed the doors in an arrogant manner.
DeleteIt angers me to hear them say that they are so open and willing to resolve conflicts. Under what situations do they do so??? There is no information presented to help the consumers determine whether or not they should choose to take the emotional adventure of an appeal.
Testimony for HB 1286-Due Process Hearings for Children with Disabilities-Burden of Proof has revealed interesting comments. There has been strong and emotional testimony by parents and their advocates commenting on how the School System mistreats parents of children with disabilities, who have disputed the System’s IEP plans. Yet, the School System dismisses the complaints and presents data to show their is a miniscule number of cases that wind up in appeal. I remember from College the book, How to Lie with Statistics, and MCPS, as well as the State System, are proving quite adapt at reframing the data to fit their outlook. First, the present data presented is skewed as many parents are unable to negotiate the complex special education appeal system and therefore do not pursue further dispute options. Determining the exact number of disputes with the School System is similar to data for the crime of rape that is seriously underreported. Second, The School System alleges that switching the burden of proof back onto the Schools would harm the collaborative relationship of the parents. Well duh, allowing the parents to have appropriate access to school documents and reports and for the school to defend its own IEP would only add to the collaborative interaction with parents. Providing more openness with parents who disagree can only add to the credibility of the process. And third, the School System claims that this bill would increase the number of appeals and therefore cost more monies is ridiculous. If the IEP plans were child appropriate and properly executed, this claim would not even be an issue. Real collaboration with parents should reduce the need to appeal. Other States have documented that the costs are, in fact, reduced. In short, if the School System actually followed what they verbalize and truly accept partnership with parents, children with special needs would be better served. However, by denying the role of the School System to create increased anger and conflict, any change will be undermined.
ReplyDelete