Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
DESE's Answer To My Child Complaint
Bert Schulte
Interim Commissioner of Education
P.O. Box 430
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
http://dese.mo.gov/
•
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
- Making a positive difference through education and service -
March 23,2009
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee's Summit, MO 64081
Re: Jacob Tucker
Dear Dr. McGehee and Mr. and Ms. Tucker:
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has completed its investigation of the
child complaint filed against the Lee's Summit R-VII School District by Curtis and Sherri Tucker on
behalf of Jacob Tucker. The complaint was received on January 22,2009.
The attached decision, containing findings and conclusions, shall constitute the final decision of the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Bert Schulte
Interim Commissioner of Education
c: Mr. Jerry Keimig, Special Education Contact,
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
Ms. Janet Hoskins, Assistant Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Julie Bower, Supervisor, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Jackie Bruner, Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Pamela A. Williams, Coordinator, Special Education Services
Ms. Cynthia Quetsch, Legal Counsel, Division of Special Education
Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Special Education
Child Complaint Decision
Re: Jacob Tucker
Findings and Conclusions
1. Allegation:
March 23, 2009
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to develop an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) with appropriate goals to address Jacob Tucker's needs.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team did not develop appropriate IEP goals that address Jacob's needs. Ms. Tucker opines
that Jacob's goals do not state how Jacob will achieve the goals, what the method of therapy or
services will be used to help him achieve the goals, who will perform those services, how often
those services will be provided, and what the services are. In addition, she opines that the goals
developed for Jacob are not appropriate or achievable given his disability.
Jerry Keimig, director of special education, indicated the IEP team met on December 15, 2008,
and developed IEP goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current educational
performance. Conference notes reflect a discussion among IEP team members regarding the
appropriateness of Jacob's goals.
The present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) of Jacob's IEP dated
December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic
involvement and progress in regular education curriculum in the following manner: class
participation, staying on task, understanding and following directions, completing and turning in
work on time, organization, self advocating for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself
through lengthy forms of written expression, test taking skills, understanding emotions of peers
and teachers, and general social skills. In addition, the PLAAFP indicates that Jacob continues
to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, self advocacy,
organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP has
five (5) goals which address increasing self advocacy, organization and study skills, pragmatic
social skills for maintaining conversations, identifying the impression he makes, and inferring
meaning from different social scenarios. The goals are measurable as they include specific
numbers to record level of attainment.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop measurable annual
goals (including academic and functional goals) to meet the child's needs resulting from the
child's disability, enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education
curriculum, and meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's
disability. Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, includes IEP goals that are related to the areas
identified as skill deficits in the present level of academic achievement and functional
performance (PLAAFP) and the areas in which Jacob's disability affects his functional and
academic involvement and his progress in the general education curriculum.
The state and federal regulations do not require that goals state how a student will achieve the
goal, the method of therapy or services, and who will provide the services. The services
summary of the IEP must include how often the services are provided and what the services are
but that information is not required to be written in the IEP goals. The service summary of
Jacob's IEP includes that information.
It is an IEP team's responsibility to develop appropriate goals on an individual basis based on the
academic and functional needs of the child. In this case, the IEP team met and developed goals
based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current academic achievement and functional
performance. Goals must be measurable. Jacob's goals were measurable. Based on the
foregoing, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
2. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to include areas of
weakness and current evaluation results in Jacob Tucker's Individualized Education Program
(IEP).
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team failed to address any ofJacob's areas of weakness and refused to put his current
evaluation scores in the present level of academic achievement.and functional performance
section of the IEP, therefore, resulting in Jacob's IEP not addressing his real needs.
Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and
academic involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the following manner:
class participation, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, completing and
turning in work on time, organization, self-advocacy for make-up work, taking notes, expressing
himself through lengthy forms of written expression, testing-taking skills, understanding the
emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. Jacob's IEP also states that Jacob
continues to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, selfadvocacy,
organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's
IEP dated December 15, 2008, states that the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 4th
Edition (WISC-IV) indicated that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentration, and exert
mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills. Jacob's ability to
process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills.
I
Jacob's reevaluation dated December 2,2008, which is included in the December 15, 2008, IEP,
states that his overall cognitive ability is within the average range as tested by the WISC-IV.
The Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability (WNV) indicated that Jacob's cognitive ability was at
the superior range. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - 2nd Edition (WIA T-II)
indicated that Jacob's reading and written language skills are in the high average range, while
math appears to be within the average range. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - 2nd
Edition, indicates moderately low to adequate adaptive skills observed at school.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to consider the strengths of the
child and the results of initial or most recent reevaluation results. In this case, the IEP team
considered Jacob's strengths, weaknesses, and test scores; and the IEP includes strengths,
weaknesses, and the most recent reevaluation results. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School
District is found not out of compliance.
3. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to allow Jacob
Tucker's parents to be an equal participant in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team
process.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team failed to make Ms. Tucker an equal partner on the IEP team. Ms. Tucker reports that
she was told by the school district that she is the expert at horne and the district is the expert on
Jacob at school. Ms. Tucker contends that the Lee's Summit R-VII School District's failure to
allow her to tape record meetings and include her conference notes with the district's conference
notes, indicates that she was not a full participant on her son's IEP team.
Documentation indicates that Mr. and Ms. Tucker were invited to and attended the IEP meetings
on May 5, 2008, and December 15, 2008.
Jacob's IEP was amended on August 27,2008, and February 2,2009. The August 27,2008,
IEPamendment indicates that Ms. Tucker was present and agreed to the changes made to Jacob's
IEP. The February 2,2009, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker agreed to the IEP
amendment via email.
Parent concerns are set forth in Jacob's IEP. In addition, Joy Rose, special education process
coordinator, informed Ms. Tucker on October 13, 2008, that all of Ms. Tucker's
communications, including parent conference notes from IEP meetings, are placed in Jacob's
special education file.
Documentation indicates there are multiple emails and correspondence dated January 23,2008,
to January 27,2009, between Ms. Tucker and various district personnel. There were numerous
communications about Jacob's progress, goals, and implementation of the IEP. Some of the
parent's requests for evaluation were granted and some refused. Ms. Tucker was provided with
draft IEPs prior to each IEP meeting. Ms. Tucker submitted a classroom observation report to
the IEP team with suggestions prior to the December 15, 2008, IEP meeting. The district
responded to numerous issues raised by Ms. Tucker, but did not always provide the relief Ms.
Tucker requested. The district offered to meet with her to discuss her concerns.
The Lee's Summit Board of Education policy states that the use of audio, video, or other
recording devices at IEP meetings or Section 504 meetings is strictly prohibited in accordance
with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The policy also states that exceptions to this policy will
only be made when such recordings are necessary to ensure parental rights that are guaranteed
under Part B of the_IDEA. These requests must be made within a-reasonable-period oftime prior
to the scheduled meetings.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require that input be considered from all IEP team members when developing a student's
Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that the district take steps to ensure that parents are
present and given an opportunity to participate. There is no requirement that parents be an
"equal" decision-maker nor is there any standard to determine the quantity or quality of
participation. Considering input and allowing participation does not require the team to include
all the input in the student's IEP. In this case, documentation reflects that Ms. Tucker was given
an opportunity to participate as a member of the IEP team. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII
School District is found not out of compliance.
I
Interim Commissioner of Education
P.O. Box 430
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
http://dese.mo.gov/
•
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
- Making a positive difference through education and service -
March 23,2009
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee's Summit, MO 64081
Re: Jacob Tucker
Dear Dr. McGehee and Mr. and Ms. Tucker:
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has completed its investigation of the
child complaint filed against the Lee's Summit R-VII School District by Curtis and Sherri Tucker on
behalf of Jacob Tucker. The complaint was received on January 22,2009.
The attached decision, containing findings and conclusions, shall constitute the final decision of the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Bert Schulte
Interim Commissioner of Education
c: Mr. Jerry Keimig, Special Education Contact,
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
Ms. Janet Hoskins, Assistant Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Julie Bower, Supervisor, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Jackie Bruner, Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Pamela A. Williams, Coordinator, Special Education Services
Ms. Cynthia Quetsch, Legal Counsel, Division of Special Education
Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Special Education
Child Complaint Decision
Re: Jacob Tucker
Findings and Conclusions
1. Allegation:
March 23, 2009
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to develop an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) with appropriate goals to address Jacob Tucker's needs.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team did not develop appropriate IEP goals that address Jacob's needs. Ms. Tucker opines
that Jacob's goals do not state how Jacob will achieve the goals, what the method of therapy or
services will be used to help him achieve the goals, who will perform those services, how often
those services will be provided, and what the services are. In addition, she opines that the goals
developed for Jacob are not appropriate or achievable given his disability.
Jerry Keimig, director of special education, indicated the IEP team met on December 15, 2008,
and developed IEP goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current educational
performance. Conference notes reflect a discussion among IEP team members regarding the
appropriateness of Jacob's goals.
The present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) of Jacob's IEP dated
December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic
involvement and progress in regular education curriculum in the following manner: class
participation, staying on task, understanding and following directions, completing and turning in
work on time, organization, self advocating for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself
through lengthy forms of written expression, test taking skills, understanding emotions of peers
and teachers, and general social skills. In addition, the PLAAFP indicates that Jacob continues
to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, self advocacy,
organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP has
five (5) goals which address increasing self advocacy, organization and study skills, pragmatic
social skills for maintaining conversations, identifying the impression he makes, and inferring
meaning from different social scenarios. The goals are measurable as they include specific
numbers to record level of attainment.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop measurable annual
goals (including academic and functional goals) to meet the child's needs resulting from the
child's disability, enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education
curriculum, and meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's
disability. Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, includes IEP goals that are related to the areas
identified as skill deficits in the present level of academic achievement and functional
performance (PLAAFP) and the areas in which Jacob's disability affects his functional and
academic involvement and his progress in the general education curriculum.
The state and federal regulations do not require that goals state how a student will achieve the
goal, the method of therapy or services, and who will provide the services. The services
summary of the IEP must include how often the services are provided and what the services are
but that information is not required to be written in the IEP goals. The service summary of
Jacob's IEP includes that information.
It is an IEP team's responsibility to develop appropriate goals on an individual basis based on the
academic and functional needs of the child. In this case, the IEP team met and developed goals
based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current academic achievement and functional
performance. Goals must be measurable. Jacob's goals were measurable. Based on the
foregoing, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
2. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to include areas of
weakness and current evaluation results in Jacob Tucker's Individualized Education Program
(IEP).
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team failed to address any ofJacob's areas of weakness and refused to put his current
evaluation scores in the present level of academic achievement.and functional performance
section of the IEP, therefore, resulting in Jacob's IEP not addressing his real needs.
Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and
academic involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the following manner:
class participation, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, completing and
turning in work on time, organization, self-advocacy for make-up work, taking notes, expressing
himself through lengthy forms of written expression, testing-taking skills, understanding the
emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. Jacob's IEP also states that Jacob
continues to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, selfadvocacy,
organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's
IEP dated December 15, 2008, states that the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 4th
Edition (WISC-IV) indicated that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentration, and exert
mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills. Jacob's ability to
process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills.
I
Jacob's reevaluation dated December 2,2008, which is included in the December 15, 2008, IEP,
states that his overall cognitive ability is within the average range as tested by the WISC-IV.
The Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability (WNV) indicated that Jacob's cognitive ability was at
the superior range. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - 2nd Edition (WIA T-II)
indicated that Jacob's reading and written language skills are in the high average range, while
math appears to be within the average range. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - 2nd
Edition, indicates moderately low to adequate adaptive skills observed at school.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to consider the strengths of the
child and the results of initial or most recent reevaluation results. In this case, the IEP team
considered Jacob's strengths, weaknesses, and test scores; and the IEP includes strengths,
weaknesses, and the most recent reevaluation results. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School
District is found not out of compliance.
3. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to allow Jacob
Tucker's parents to be an equal participant in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team
process.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) team failed to make Ms. Tucker an equal partner on the IEP team. Ms. Tucker reports that
she was told by the school district that she is the expert at horne and the district is the expert on
Jacob at school. Ms. Tucker contends that the Lee's Summit R-VII School District's failure to
allow her to tape record meetings and include her conference notes with the district's conference
notes, indicates that she was not a full participant on her son's IEP team.
Documentation indicates that Mr. and Ms. Tucker were invited to and attended the IEP meetings
on May 5, 2008, and December 15, 2008.
Jacob's IEP was amended on August 27,2008, and February 2,2009. The August 27,2008,
IEPamendment indicates that Ms. Tucker was present and agreed to the changes made to Jacob's
IEP. The February 2,2009, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker agreed to the IEP
amendment via email.
Parent concerns are set forth in Jacob's IEP. In addition, Joy Rose, special education process
coordinator, informed Ms. Tucker on October 13, 2008, that all of Ms. Tucker's
communications, including parent conference notes from IEP meetings, are placed in Jacob's
special education file.
Documentation indicates there are multiple emails and correspondence dated January 23,2008,
to January 27,2009, between Ms. Tucker and various district personnel. There were numerous
communications about Jacob's progress, goals, and implementation of the IEP. Some of the
parent's requests for evaluation were granted and some refused. Ms. Tucker was provided with
draft IEPs prior to each IEP meeting. Ms. Tucker submitted a classroom observation report to
the IEP team with suggestions prior to the December 15, 2008, IEP meeting. The district
responded to numerous issues raised by Ms. Tucker, but did not always provide the relief Ms.
Tucker requested. The district offered to meet with her to discuss her concerns.
The Lee's Summit Board of Education policy states that the use of audio, video, or other
recording devices at IEP meetings or Section 504 meetings is strictly prohibited in accordance
with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The policy also states that exceptions to this policy will
only be made when such recordings are necessary to ensure parental rights that are guaranteed
under Part B of the_IDEA. These requests must be made within a-reasonable-period oftime prior
to the scheduled meetings.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) require that input be considered from all IEP team members when developing a student's
Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that the district take steps to ensure that parents are
present and given an opportunity to participate. There is no requirement that parents be an
"equal" decision-maker nor is there any standard to determine the quantity or quality of
participation. Considering input and allowing participation does not require the team to include
all the input in the student's IEP. In this case, documentation reflects that Ms. Tucker was given
an opportunity to participate as a member of the IEP team. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII
School District is found not out of compliance.
I
Child Complaint Number Two
January 17, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around the goals that the team have for him. I don’t think that they are appropriate and do not address all of his needs. He recently had a reevaluation and he had quite a scatter of scores. His IEP doesn’t address many of the areas of his weaknesses. The District refused to put his evaluation scores in his Present Level and therefore the IEP doesn’t address his real needs.
My son's PLAAP is just what the district brought to the table and hardly any of my input was used. That does not make me an equal partner on the IEP team. While the composite test scores might give a picture of what Jake can or can't do, the subtests give the real picture of his strengths and weaknesses. To make a statement such as, "he performed within the average" does not address his strengths and weaknesses.
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
Previously, IEPs were required to include "a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance ..."
Under IDEA 2004, the IEP must include "a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance ..."
Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance require objective data from assessments.
If the school insists on using subjective teacher observations, an independent observer (the hearing officer, for example) will conclude that the school is not interested in monitoring the child's educational progress. This is exactly the conclusion you want this person to draw.
I asked for an ADOS to be performed. The Autism Coordinator suggested that the Autism Social Skills Profile would be a better tool. I agreed to that test, but I stated that I didn’t want my scores averaged in with the teacher’s scores. My son is in high school and his teachers aren’t familiar with his disability and they only see him one hour a day. To use their observations, and to average them with mine, would not give an accurate picture. The District agreed to do that.
The District had twelve teachers and me fill out the profile. There was no test score for this instrument. Instead, there was a summary at the end of the evaluation. I made my own graph to make it easier to read. This information was not available at the meeting to discuss the evaluations. There was only a rough draft without the summary or any explanation of how the data would be used. The class observation was not available either. Instead, the evaluator had written notes on notebook paper and read them aloud at the meeting. The following is the summary that was provided by the district.
Following are the items which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "never" observed (items 1-36): invites peers to join him in activities, interacts with peers during unstructured activities, asks questions to request information about a person, requests assistance from others, offers assistance to others, initiates greetings with others, introduces self to others, politely asks others to move out of his way. Following are the items
which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "often/very often"(items 37-49) observed as a concern: engages in solitary interests and hobbies, engages in solitary activities in the presence of others.
My son’s evaluations show some serious deficits. These are not truly addressed in his present IEP. The following are his goals:
1. Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester.
2. Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester.
3. Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
4. Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impressions he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
5. Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of other in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days.
These goals do not state how he will do these things, what the method of therapy or services will be to help him do these things, who will perform these services, how often these services will be provided, and what the services are. How can a goal be achieved when there is nothing in place to achieve it?
1. Goal # 1 What does this mean? Who is he to ask? What phrasing will he use? What kind of help can he expect? What is the time frame for the response?
2. Goal #2 This goal would allow him to fail. If he only completes a task 2 times per semester, he would fail.
3. Goal #3 So if they prompt him, he will concisely say, “Hi. How are you?” This is not a measurable goal. What is relevant or irrelevant information? Who measures this? Who decides? What is the relevance meter?
4. Goal #4 How can he self reflect and self repair language? Is his impression measurable? He is being expected to remember to adjust his disability.
5. Goal #5 How will he improve? How will you know which he is doing on which of three days?
How are they going to help him achieve these goals because it looks like they're making him responsible for everything (ie he'll ask for help; he'll maintain the conversation")
What are THEY going to do to help HIM be successful?
What do they mean by "maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information?" Who defines what's "concise" or "relevant"?
What are his disabilities and known areas of need? For example, can he identify what "impression" he "feels" he's making? Will he be able to "adjust his behaviors accordingly" once he "recognizes his impressions"? How will he master that goal? By teacher observation of his interactions? Is there going to be someone there to "moderate" his interactions with others? For example, will a teacher or therapist
stop to ask him, "What impression do you think you're making on your peers?" either after the interaction is over or would they ask him in front of his peers?
What is his baseline for "inferring meaning" in social situations now? Does he have one? How do they know this is an area of need?
What "social situations" are they going to use to try to teach him to infer meaning?
Can he identify an "appropriate response to the emotions of others"? What specifically do they mean by an "appropriate response" to emotions of others? Are they trying to teach compassion, sympathy, how to diffuse someone who is angry with him?
It seems like they want him to tailor his actions to someone else's "reactions." Can he do this?
How are they even measuring 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive days? They haven't defined what their criteria are yet (i.e. He'll engage in a 5 minute give and take conversation about some social situation - I don't know, say, how to act in a restaurant - so, maybe how to interact with a waiter when ordering a meal).
Because there are no evaluations in the Present Level we don’t even know what his areas of deficits are. We only know that sometimes he is average, sometimes he is above average, sometimes he is below average, but overall he seems to be quite average.
I asked for an independent evaluation in hopes that I would be able to get more information about my son’s deficits and have someone to help me with analyzing the data. The district did not send me the same information, about providers, that they send other parents. The list that they sent me was inaccurate and forced me to find the updated information on my own. I notified the district of this. I have received no response from them.
INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS
34 CFR §300.502
General
As described below, you have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of
your child if you disagree with the evaluation of your child that was obtained by your school
district.
If you request an independent educational evaluation, the school district must provide you with information
about where you may obtain an independent educational evaluation and about the school district’s criteria
that apply to independent educational evaluations.
My son’s evaluations show that he has a weakness in oral expression. His standard score in that area was an 80. His full scale IQ is 102. Our district standard states that a 20-point difference qualifies you for services. This is per Jerry Keimig. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Pragmatic Language Usage Index was an 86. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Contextual Conventions was a 90. This is not a solid skill and this area needs a goal. His standard score for Sentence Assembly was 80. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Language Memory was an 88. This area needs a goal and accommodations. His age equivalent score for the Interpersonal Relationships subtest of the Vineland II was <3:0. His age equivalent score for the Expressive was 6:10. His age equivalent for Play and Leisure Time was 3:6. His age equivalent for Coping Skills was 3:2. These were observations from a teacher that sees him one hour a day. The Vineland II scores that come from the parent rating report are: Receptive, age equivalent 1:6, Expressive, age equivalent 5:4, Personal, age equivalent 5:10, Domestic, age equivalent 5:6, Interpersonal Relationships, age equivalent 0:1, Play and Leisure Time, age equivalent 1:10, Coping Skills, age equivalent 3:10. His Internalizing was at the Clinically Significant Level, his externalizing was at the Elevated Level, and his Maladaptive Behavior Index was at the Clinically Significant Level. He needs help to improve in all of these areas. His standard score for Working Memory Index was 88. He needs goals and accommodations in this area.
I don’t believe that his deficits are being addressed and the District seems to be complacent about this. His overall scores aren’t that significant and they are not addressing the subtest scores.
I have attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education and his right to a free and appropriate education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district has prohibited my son from making progress and receiving the free and appropriate education that is federally mandated.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 2 – Email Discussing Social Skills Program, dated December 28, 2008
Attachment 3 – Graph of Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 4 – Email stating evaluator list is inaccurate, dated December 26, 2008
Attachment 5 – Email requesting IEE, dated December 19, 2008
Attachment 6 – Email with amended evaluator list, dated December 29, 2008
Attachment 7 – Email with information from psychologist, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 8 – Email re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 9 – Secondary School Experiences of Students With Autism
Attachment 10 – Vineland Comparison Graph
Attachment 11 – Full Scale IQ vs. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test
Attachment 12 - Full Scale IQ vs. CELF-4
Attachment 13 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOPL-2)
Attachment 14 – Full Scale IQ vs. TLC-E)
Attachment 15 – WISC-IV
Attachment 16 – Full Scale IQ vs. WNV
Attachment 17 – Full Scale IQ vs. WIATT-II
Attachment 18 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOWL-3
Attachment 19 – Child Complaint Model Form
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around the goals that the team have for him. I don’t think that they are appropriate and do not address all of his needs. He recently had a reevaluation and he had quite a scatter of scores. His IEP doesn’t address many of the areas of his weaknesses. The District refused to put his evaluation scores in his Present Level and therefore the IEP doesn’t address his real needs.
My son's PLAAP is just what the district brought to the table and hardly any of my input was used. That does not make me an equal partner on the IEP team. While the composite test scores might give a picture of what Jake can or can't do, the subtests give the real picture of his strengths and weaknesses. To make a statement such as, "he performed within the average" does not address his strengths and weaknesses.
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
Previously, IEPs were required to include "a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance ..."
Under IDEA 2004, the IEP must include "a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance ..."
Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance require objective data from assessments.
If the school insists on using subjective teacher observations, an independent observer (the hearing officer, for example) will conclude that the school is not interested in monitoring the child's educational progress. This is exactly the conclusion you want this person to draw.
I asked for an ADOS to be performed. The Autism Coordinator suggested that the Autism Social Skills Profile would be a better tool. I agreed to that test, but I stated that I didn’t want my scores averaged in with the teacher’s scores. My son is in high school and his teachers aren’t familiar with his disability and they only see him one hour a day. To use their observations, and to average them with mine, would not give an accurate picture. The District agreed to do that.
The District had twelve teachers and me fill out the profile. There was no test score for this instrument. Instead, there was a summary at the end of the evaluation. I made my own graph to make it easier to read. This information was not available at the meeting to discuss the evaluations. There was only a rough draft without the summary or any explanation of how the data would be used. The class observation was not available either. Instead, the evaluator had written notes on notebook paper and read them aloud at the meeting. The following is the summary that was provided by the district.
Following are the items which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "never" observed (items 1-36): invites peers to join him in activities, interacts with peers during unstructured activities, asks questions to request information about a person, requests assistance from others, offers assistance to others, initiates greetings with others, introduces self to others, politely asks others to move out of his way. Following are the items
which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "often/very often"(items 37-49) observed as a concern: engages in solitary interests and hobbies, engages in solitary activities in the presence of others.
My son’s evaluations show some serious deficits. These are not truly addressed in his present IEP. The following are his goals:
1. Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester.
2. Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester.
3. Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
4. Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impressions he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
5. Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of other in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days.
These goals do not state how he will do these things, what the method of therapy or services will be to help him do these things, who will perform these services, how often these services will be provided, and what the services are. How can a goal be achieved when there is nothing in place to achieve it?
1. Goal # 1 What does this mean? Who is he to ask? What phrasing will he use? What kind of help can he expect? What is the time frame for the response?
2. Goal #2 This goal would allow him to fail. If he only completes a task 2 times per semester, he would fail.
3. Goal #3 So if they prompt him, he will concisely say, “Hi. How are you?” This is not a measurable goal. What is relevant or irrelevant information? Who measures this? Who decides? What is the relevance meter?
4. Goal #4 How can he self reflect and self repair language? Is his impression measurable? He is being expected to remember to adjust his disability.
5. Goal #5 How will he improve? How will you know which he is doing on which of three days?
How are they going to help him achieve these goals because it looks like they're making him responsible for everything (ie he'll ask for help; he'll maintain the conversation")
What are THEY going to do to help HIM be successful?
What do they mean by "maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information?" Who defines what's "concise" or "relevant"?
What are his disabilities and known areas of need? For example, can he identify what "impression" he "feels" he's making? Will he be able to "adjust his behaviors accordingly" once he "recognizes his impressions"? How will he master that goal? By teacher observation of his interactions? Is there going to be someone there to "moderate" his interactions with others? For example, will a teacher or therapist
stop to ask him, "What impression do you think you're making on your peers?" either after the interaction is over or would they ask him in front of his peers?
What is his baseline for "inferring meaning" in social situations now? Does he have one? How do they know this is an area of need?
What "social situations" are they going to use to try to teach him to infer meaning?
Can he identify an "appropriate response to the emotions of others"? What specifically do they mean by an "appropriate response" to emotions of others? Are they trying to teach compassion, sympathy, how to diffuse someone who is angry with him?
It seems like they want him to tailor his actions to someone else's "reactions." Can he do this?
How are they even measuring 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive days? They haven't defined what their criteria are yet (i.e. He'll engage in a 5 minute give and take conversation about some social situation - I don't know, say, how to act in a restaurant - so, maybe how to interact with a waiter when ordering a meal).
Because there are no evaluations in the Present Level we don’t even know what his areas of deficits are. We only know that sometimes he is average, sometimes he is above average, sometimes he is below average, but overall he seems to be quite average.
I asked for an independent evaluation in hopes that I would be able to get more information about my son’s deficits and have someone to help me with analyzing the data. The district did not send me the same information, about providers, that they send other parents. The list that they sent me was inaccurate and forced me to find the updated information on my own. I notified the district of this. I have received no response from them.
INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS
34 CFR §300.502
General
As described below, you have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of
your child if you disagree with the evaluation of your child that was obtained by your school
district.
If you request an independent educational evaluation, the school district must provide you with information
about where you may obtain an independent educational evaluation and about the school district’s criteria
that apply to independent educational evaluations.
My son’s evaluations show that he has a weakness in oral expression. His standard score in that area was an 80. His full scale IQ is 102. Our district standard states that a 20-point difference qualifies you for services. This is per Jerry Keimig. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Pragmatic Language Usage Index was an 86. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Contextual Conventions was a 90. This is not a solid skill and this area needs a goal. His standard score for Sentence Assembly was 80. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Language Memory was an 88. This area needs a goal and accommodations. His age equivalent score for the Interpersonal Relationships subtest of the Vineland II was <3:0. His age equivalent score for the Expressive was 6:10. His age equivalent for Play and Leisure Time was 3:6. His age equivalent for Coping Skills was 3:2. These were observations from a teacher that sees him one hour a day. The Vineland II scores that come from the parent rating report are: Receptive, age equivalent 1:6, Expressive, age equivalent 5:4, Personal, age equivalent 5:10, Domestic, age equivalent 5:6, Interpersonal Relationships, age equivalent 0:1, Play and Leisure Time, age equivalent 1:10, Coping Skills, age equivalent 3:10. His Internalizing was at the Clinically Significant Level, his externalizing was at the Elevated Level, and his Maladaptive Behavior Index was at the Clinically Significant Level. He needs help to improve in all of these areas. His standard score for Working Memory Index was 88. He needs goals and accommodations in this area.
I don’t believe that his deficits are being addressed and the District seems to be complacent about this. His overall scores aren’t that significant and they are not addressing the subtest scores.
I have attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education and his right to a free and appropriate education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district has prohibited my son from making progress and receiving the free and appropriate education that is federally mandated.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 2 – Email Discussing Social Skills Program, dated December 28, 2008
Attachment 3 – Graph of Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 4 – Email stating evaluator list is inaccurate, dated December 26, 2008
Attachment 5 – Email requesting IEE, dated December 19, 2008
Attachment 6 – Email with amended evaluator list, dated December 29, 2008
Attachment 7 – Email with information from psychologist, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 8 – Email re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 9 – Secondary School Experiences of Students With Autism
Attachment 10 – Vineland Comparison Graph
Attachment 11 – Full Scale IQ vs. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test
Attachment 12 - Full Scale IQ vs. CELF-4
Attachment 13 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOPL-2)
Attachment 14 – Full Scale IQ vs. TLC-E)
Attachment 15 – WISC-IV
Attachment 16 – Full Scale IQ vs. WNV
Attachment 17 – Full Scale IQ vs. WIATT-II
Attachment 18 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOWL-3
Attachment 19 – Child Complaint Model Form
My first Child Complaint
January16, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around parent participation. During meetings, my comments are either ignored and no changes are made or they listen to my concerns and state that they don’t agree and no changes are made. Any suggestions that I have made regarding Present Level are ignored. I state that I don’t agree with their description of the Present Level and they tell me that I may include that in the Parent Concerns. I submit my concerns to be included in the Parent Concerns and they edit this document. I asked for tests score to be placed in the Present Level to guide services proposed and I am refused. I was allowed no input in relation to the goals and/or services. My son has an eligibility category of Educational Autism. He is in regular education classes with no supports besides 40 minutes of speech per week. I feel that decisions have been made prior to the meeting regarding my child’s IEP. The district has removed items from the Modifications/Accommodations page without my approval. It was discussed in the meeting and the decision was made to change the frequency from As Needed to Daily; not to delete it entirely. The meeting notes taken by the District were incomplete and rarely reported the discussions held in the meeting. I specifically wrote the Superintendent asking to record the meeting due to the fact that the recorder could not accurately describe the events as tape recording is against District policy, although legal in Missouri. I have not received an answer to this request to date. I requested a notice of action refused for the District’s refusal to include my changes in the Present Level and for editing my Parent Concerns without my approval. The district responded to this request on January 6 in an e-mail but I have received no such document.
Applicable sections of IDEA law are described below:
Integral to the design of IDEA is the substantive involvement of parents in assessing student needs and planning how to address those needs. In its Finding section, IDEA 2004 states that:
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by...
(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home... (20 U.S.C. $ 1400 (c) (5) (B).)
State education agencies and local school districts must have in place policies and procedures that ensure the opportunity for parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, evaluation, program and placement of their children (20 U.S.C. $ 1415 (b) (1)). Participate is the operative term. The school must enable meaningful participation in discussion and decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. The requirement applies to all meetings in which decisions will be made except for routine meetings among staff to discuss day-to-day instructional planning necessary to implement an existing IEP.
Recent decisions affirm the essential role of parents in designing their children's special education. Precluding parent participation through staff predetermination of services or placement egregiously violates IDEA. School districts should be aware that courts have become more alert to this problem and less likely to excuse it (Deal v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Ed.; Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.).
Also see attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district prohibited my participation thus meaningfully impeding my son’s education.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816.554.3017 Home
E-mail: autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Child Complaint – Model Form
Attachment 2 – Letter to District re: Parent Participation, dated December 22, 2008
Attachment 3 – Letter to District re: My Parent Concerns, dated December 23, 2008
Attachment 4 – Letter from Joy Rose re: Notice of Action, dated January 6, 2009
Attachment 5 – Letter to District re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 6 – Copy of District Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 7 – Request to Tape Record, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 8 – Parent’s Meeting Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 9 – District Refusal to Include Parent’s Notes, dated October 13, 2008
Attachment 10-Request for Notice of Action, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 11-Request for Changes in Present Level, dated December 30, 2008
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around parent participation. During meetings, my comments are either ignored and no changes are made or they listen to my concerns and state that they don’t agree and no changes are made. Any suggestions that I have made regarding Present Level are ignored. I state that I don’t agree with their description of the Present Level and they tell me that I may include that in the Parent Concerns. I submit my concerns to be included in the Parent Concerns and they edit this document. I asked for tests score to be placed in the Present Level to guide services proposed and I am refused. I was allowed no input in relation to the goals and/or services. My son has an eligibility category of Educational Autism. He is in regular education classes with no supports besides 40 minutes of speech per week. I feel that decisions have been made prior to the meeting regarding my child’s IEP. The district has removed items from the Modifications/Accommodations page without my approval. It was discussed in the meeting and the decision was made to change the frequency from As Needed to Daily; not to delete it entirely. The meeting notes taken by the District were incomplete and rarely reported the discussions held in the meeting. I specifically wrote the Superintendent asking to record the meeting due to the fact that the recorder could not accurately describe the events as tape recording is against District policy, although legal in Missouri. I have not received an answer to this request to date. I requested a notice of action refused for the District’s refusal to include my changes in the Present Level and for editing my Parent Concerns without my approval. The district responded to this request on January 6 in an e-mail but I have received no such document.
Applicable sections of IDEA law are described below:
Integral to the design of IDEA is the substantive involvement of parents in assessing student needs and planning how to address those needs. In its Finding section, IDEA 2004 states that:
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by...
(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home... (20 U.S.C. $ 1400 (c) (5) (B).)
State education agencies and local school districts must have in place policies and procedures that ensure the opportunity for parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, evaluation, program and placement of their children (20 U.S.C. $ 1415 (b) (1)). Participate is the operative term. The school must enable meaningful participation in discussion and decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. The requirement applies to all meetings in which decisions will be made except for routine meetings among staff to discuss day-to-day instructional planning necessary to implement an existing IEP.
Recent decisions affirm the essential role of parents in designing their children's special education. Precluding parent participation through staff predetermination of services or placement egregiously violates IDEA. School districts should be aware that courts have become more alert to this problem and less likely to excuse it (Deal v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Ed.; Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.).
Also see attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district prohibited my participation thus meaningfully impeding my son’s education.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816.554.3017 Home
E-mail: autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Child Complaint – Model Form
Attachment 2 – Letter to District re: Parent Participation, dated December 22, 2008
Attachment 3 – Letter to District re: My Parent Concerns, dated December 23, 2008
Attachment 4 – Letter from Joy Rose re: Notice of Action, dated January 6, 2009
Attachment 5 – Letter to District re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 6 – Copy of District Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 7 – Request to Tape Record, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 8 – Parent’s Meeting Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 9 – District Refusal to Include Parent’s Notes, dated October 13, 2008
Attachment 10-Request for Notice of Action, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 11-Request for Changes in Present Level, dated December 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
"Enough is Enough' Group Opposes R-7 Tax Increase
http://www.lsjournal.com/2011/01/04/61366/enough-is-enough.html
‘Enough is enough’
Group opposes R-7 tax increase
Emily Jarrett, Journal Staff
With a little more than a month left until the Feb. 8 election, the fight over a proposed 89-cent tax increase has started. And the first to step into the ring is the group, Citizens for Responsible Education.
“We’re not anti-school district, I want to make that clear,” said spokesperson and former Lee’s Summit City Council member, Ron Williams. “A lot of times when you oppose something within the district, people say you’re anti-education or anti-children. This is just about us saying ‘enough is enough.’”
In November, the Lee’s Summit R-7 School Board voted 6-1 to approve a measure to put an 89-cent tax increase on the ballot in February. If the levy passes with a simple majority, property owners will see their levy rise from $6.05 to $6.94 per $100 assessed valuation.
“Simply put, it’s time for people to say, ‘can I afford this?’” Williams said.
While Citizens for Responsible Education is a relatively new group – their first official meeting was Dec. 21 – its mission is clear.
“Our goal is two-fold, to inform voters about the issue and give another side to the facts the district is putting out, and also to defeat the levy based on those facts not personal opinions,” Williams said. “I spoke to one woman who didn’t even know there was a tax increase on the February ballot. Many people aren’t aware of this at all and I think the district knows that.”
“(The district) is spending an awful lot of money to do an election during a time period when no one votes,” added Brad Cox, a Lee’s Summit business and property owner and group treasurer.
Both Williams and Cox said the district has not done enough to give voters all the facts on the tax-increase issue.
“They had a public forum where the public wasn’t able to talk,” Cox said, referring to last month’s meeting on possible budget cuts the district will make if the levy does not pass. “This is the worst economic climate in 100 years and the district needs to realize they can’t keep going back to the public trough. The rest of the community has had to buckle down and deal with their finances, now it’s the district’s turn.”
According to R-7, the district has cut nearly $19.5 million from its 2010-2011 school year budget and if the levy does not pass, will be forced to cut an additional $6 million, including cuts to teacher positions, creating combination classrooms and additional budget cuts that will affect programs and activities.
“(The Citizens’ Advisory Committee) felt very strongly that voters needed to be able to say, ‘we want to support our schools’ or not,” said Terri Harmon, co-chair of the Building Our Future Committee, a pro-levy group. “By not passing the levy and cutting the budget, we’re harming the education in the community. By just cutting another $6 million, it will negatively impact thousands and thousands of students.”
Williams said both he and the members of Citizens for Responsible Education recognize the budget cuts the district has already made but, “enough is enough.”
“I don’t have an answer for what the district should do,” Williams said. “I don’t know how to run a school district. But I do know how to run a checkbook and now is not the time for more taxes.”
According to Cox, the $19.5 million in cuts are about 10 percent of the district’s budget.
“Show me how many businesses have had to cut 10 percent,” he said. “And now, the district is asking for an operating levy increase of almost 18 percent. We don’t want anyone to lose their job but I think people are forgetting that if the levy passes, those additional taxes are going to trickle down to any business owner who rents property in Lee’s Summit, not to mention the property owners.”
While Williams and Cox are both Lee’s Summit business owners, neither have children who currently attend school in the district.
“I think that’s irrelevant,” Williams said. “No one wants to take programs or activities away from children, that’s not what this group is about.
“I was in a third and fourth grade combination classroom and I don’t think it honestly affected me,” he added with a laugh. “People will rise to the occasion.”
Cox agreed with Williams saying the failure of this particular levy wouldn’t undo years of R-7 education and that he’s “disappointed” when district administration officials talk about “protecting the legacy of R-7” through the levy.
“That’s a threat. Don’t use the education of our children as a threat,” Cox said. “I don’t believe for a minute that, if this levy doesn’t pass, the education in the district will suddenly be sub-standard.
“People all over the country, all over Lee’s Summit, are having to cut back and do more with less. For years we’ve been hearing about all the fantastic teachers in the district – and I really do believe we have them – they’re still going to be fantastic teachers if the levy fails. We can still maintain success in tough times.”
Calls to R-7 superintendent David McGehee were not returned by press time.
To reach Journal reporter Emily Jarrett, call 816-282-7018 or e-mail ejarrett@lsjournal.com.
‘Enough is enough’
Group opposes R-7 tax increase
Emily Jarrett, Journal Staff
With a little more than a month left until the Feb. 8 election, the fight over a proposed 89-cent tax increase has started. And the first to step into the ring is the group, Citizens for Responsible Education.
“We’re not anti-school district, I want to make that clear,” said spokesperson and former Lee’s Summit City Council member, Ron Williams. “A lot of times when you oppose something within the district, people say you’re anti-education or anti-children. This is just about us saying ‘enough is enough.’”
In November, the Lee’s Summit R-7 School Board voted 6-1 to approve a measure to put an 89-cent tax increase on the ballot in February. If the levy passes with a simple majority, property owners will see their levy rise from $6.05 to $6.94 per $100 assessed valuation.
“Simply put, it’s time for people to say, ‘can I afford this?’” Williams said.
While Citizens for Responsible Education is a relatively new group – their first official meeting was Dec. 21 – its mission is clear.
“Our goal is two-fold, to inform voters about the issue and give another side to the facts the district is putting out, and also to defeat the levy based on those facts not personal opinions,” Williams said. “I spoke to one woman who didn’t even know there was a tax increase on the February ballot. Many people aren’t aware of this at all and I think the district knows that.”
“(The district) is spending an awful lot of money to do an election during a time period when no one votes,” added Brad Cox, a Lee’s Summit business and property owner and group treasurer.
Both Williams and Cox said the district has not done enough to give voters all the facts on the tax-increase issue.
“They had a public forum where the public wasn’t able to talk,” Cox said, referring to last month’s meeting on possible budget cuts the district will make if the levy does not pass. “This is the worst economic climate in 100 years and the district needs to realize they can’t keep going back to the public trough. The rest of the community has had to buckle down and deal with their finances, now it’s the district’s turn.”
According to R-7, the district has cut nearly $19.5 million from its 2010-2011 school year budget and if the levy does not pass, will be forced to cut an additional $6 million, including cuts to teacher positions, creating combination classrooms and additional budget cuts that will affect programs and activities.
“(The Citizens’ Advisory Committee) felt very strongly that voters needed to be able to say, ‘we want to support our schools’ or not,” said Terri Harmon, co-chair of the Building Our Future Committee, a pro-levy group. “By not passing the levy and cutting the budget, we’re harming the education in the community. By just cutting another $6 million, it will negatively impact thousands and thousands of students.”
Williams said both he and the members of Citizens for Responsible Education recognize the budget cuts the district has already made but, “enough is enough.”
“I don’t have an answer for what the district should do,” Williams said. “I don’t know how to run a school district. But I do know how to run a checkbook and now is not the time for more taxes.”
According to Cox, the $19.5 million in cuts are about 10 percent of the district’s budget.
“Show me how many businesses have had to cut 10 percent,” he said. “And now, the district is asking for an operating levy increase of almost 18 percent. We don’t want anyone to lose their job but I think people are forgetting that if the levy passes, those additional taxes are going to trickle down to any business owner who rents property in Lee’s Summit, not to mention the property owners.”
While Williams and Cox are both Lee’s Summit business owners, neither have children who currently attend school in the district.
“I think that’s irrelevant,” Williams said. “No one wants to take programs or activities away from children, that’s not what this group is about.
“I was in a third and fourth grade combination classroom and I don’t think it honestly affected me,” he added with a laugh. “People will rise to the occasion.”
Cox agreed with Williams saying the failure of this particular levy wouldn’t undo years of R-7 education and that he’s “disappointed” when district administration officials talk about “protecting the legacy of R-7” through the levy.
“That’s a threat. Don’t use the education of our children as a threat,” Cox said. “I don’t believe for a minute that, if this levy doesn’t pass, the education in the district will suddenly be sub-standard.
“People all over the country, all over Lee’s Summit, are having to cut back and do more with less. For years we’ve been hearing about all the fantastic teachers in the district – and I really do believe we have them – they’re still going to be fantastic teachers if the levy fails. We can still maintain success in tough times.”
Calls to R-7 superintendent David McGehee were not returned by press time.
To reach Journal reporter Emily Jarrett, call 816-282-7018 or e-mail ejarrett@lsjournal.com.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)