Parents tell horror stories of special education encounters
SMMUSD HDQTRS In the end, it was a confrontation that appeared to be years in the making.
Tears were shed, accusations were made and private horror stories were shared during an emotion-laden discussion about special education at the Board of Education meeting on Thursday.
It was a conversation based on the highly-anticipated results from an independent evaluation of what has become a controversial piece of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for more than a year — the issue of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses in Individualized Education Plans, which outlines specialized services that special ed students receive.
Lou Barber and Associates presented its findings from the nearly four-month-long analysis of the program, concluding there was concern in the district’s over-utilization of settlement agreements, fueling a perception of secrecy at the central administration level and leading to a sense of mistrust by parents.
“I think you run a wonderful school system here for most children,” Lou Barber said at the meeting. “The problem is there are some children who are not getting the services they should be getting in the program.”
Several special education parents have expressed concerns about an alleged culture of fear and hostility concerning the settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses, which are entered into when there is an impasse in negotiations for the IEP. These parents claim the agreements are made behind closed doors, feeling pressured into signing a document with which they didn’t agree. Further exacerbating the issue is the confidentiality clauses, which bar parents from speaking to a third-party about the services received within the settlement agreements. Administrators have said the settlement agreements is a cost-saving measure, keeping legal costs down.
“You’re not doing anything to help special ed kids move in and be a part of society,”Meredith Hyde, one parent, said.“Shame on you.”
The report, which was mandated by the City Council last year in order for the district to receive a half million dollar increase in city aid, encompassed several areas of special education outside of settlement agreements, including programmatic and financial elements. While the study did state there were concerns with the agreements, it also commended the district for the quality of the actual services the students receive, praising SMMUSD for delivering a wide-ranging array of quality service in a well-funded program staffed with highly-qualified personnel.
“Taking (the report) at face value indicates we are performing quite well,” Superintendent Dianne Talarico said during the meeting.
The report answered a total of 17 questions ranging form whether the district’s written policies are consistent with state and federal regulations to whether contracted services are cost-effective. Talarico pointed out that most of the questions were answered in the affirmative.
“We will celebrate the commendations and take the recommendations into serious consideration,” Talarico said.
The suggestion Barber made to the board was that it take a close look at transparency and opening the line of communication with parents, a resounding issue that he heard from the approximately 100 parents interviewed for the report.
The consultant also recommended that control be decentralized and that the individual school sites be empowered when it comes to dictating the special education services that the children receive, noting that too much seems to be occurring at the administrative level and not enough by those who directly deliver the services.
“The district procedure is to run things from the district office,” Barber said.“That is not the way you build a team approach to solving the educational needs of all children.”
The report concluded that settlement agreements — the catalyst for the evaluation — was legal and used by districts across the state in varying degrees, some reporting they had issued about 10 or 15 in the past year, some reporting they had not entered into any in several years. The SMMUSD on the other hand has entered into more than 140 in the past three years.
One concerning issue with the settlement agreements was the failure to incorporate the services in the IEP,which means teachers do not have a true record of the services that the student has received in the past, according to Tamara VonBuck,an attorney who conducted a legal analyses of the agreements for the report.
VonBuck added there is a sentiment that parents are not allowed to talk to each other because of the confidentiality clauses and recommended that the district encourage that dialogue to occur.
Most of the school districts interviewed for the report agreed that when used on a limited basis, settlement agreements provide a way to resolve conflicts without going into a due process hearing. But it wasn’t a practice ever touched by the consultant.
Barber said he operated three of the largest special education units in the state and never once used a settlement agreement.
“A settlement agreement is not a good process, the question is was it a legal process?” Barber said. “I think you use settlement agreements when you can’t (take) the time to resolve those issues in a face-to-face (meeting).”
The report also found that while the student education population has declined or flattened over the past few years,spending has actually gone up, which can be attributable directly to staffing. Francie Heim,who worked on the report,said special ed in the state is seriously underfunded.
Parents gave impassioned speech after impassioned speech,some whose children have long graduated from the school district, some who never had any students in special education. The unifying theme among these speeches was that there needed to be changes in both policy and mindset, some parents saying there is bullying going on by both students and teachers. To these parents, the report seemed to confirm their feelings the past few years.
Sheila Forsander, the past president of John Adams Middle School’s PTA, said there needs to be an attitude that encourages building bridges and of parents and teachers working collaboratively.
Forsander, who had two children in general education, spoke on behalf of the parents who were afraid to speak.
“This atmosphere is not in the interest of children or families,” Forsander said, adding that she continues to hear stories of harassment. “I heard just one week ago of a staff member making inappropriate comments about her own status in a way to use intimidation.”
The school board members assured parents that the report would not be shelved and that it would be acted upon as soon as possible, pointing out the Talarico was expected to respond to several of the recommendations with an action plan at the next board meeting later this month.
“I do think it’s important that all the elements of the report are taken into account,” school board Vice President Jose Escarce said.
Board President Oscar de la Torre said he found the it troubling that the district has somehow lost empathy, taking partial responsibility that the board had not acted on the accusations sooner. The Special Education District Advisory Council brought up the settlement agreements in 2006.
De la Torre also pointed out that though the board last summer passed a moratorium on the confidentiality clauses until the report was completed,that hasn’t necessarily been the case.
“We have not curtailed the use of confidentiality clauses since that moratorium,” he said.
The board president suggested that the district put in an orientation program for new parents of special education, informing them of various support groups that exists.
“I would like for us to create a school district that has empathy for people,” he said. “Find a process to be supportive.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 5, 2008. Read the original PDF.