Dear Fran: Homeschool Mom Patricia O'Dell Ripped The VT DOE A New One!

I've been going over Patricia's hearing in my mind these past few days but haven't been able to put anything down in writing except the article I did. I've been trying to help her get into some sort of housing for the winter and that has me side-tracked. I thought I'd start to write down what I remember in a few emails to you just to get me started and then I can eventually work that into some sort of report later. The Hearing Officer used a tape recorder for the meeting so there is an audio version of this meeting floating around somewhere. I'm sure a transcript can be obtained in the future.

Bruce Bjornlund, the Hearing Officer, wasn't going to let Patricia and I start the hearing with an opening prayer so we did anyway. I read the following and the only 3 people to say 'amen' after were myself, Patricia and Neil Randall.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, we asked that you place your hand upon the shoulder of our sister, Patricia O’Dell, and stand with her throughout the following proceedings today. We ask that you give her courage to confront her accusers, understanding of their will to deny her and her children the peace and tranquillity they need to continue on their educational journey, and grant her the ability to forgive them their oppressive sins against her.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, we ask that you grant each and everyone in this room the wisdom to seek your guidance in these matters and that they, each and everyone, shall not falter to tell the truth as they testify before You and others here today.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, we seek your comfort for those who are here today who are still healing from these whirlwind times. Some of us here today felt the effects of a tyrant a half a world away on September 11th but Patricia has been hounded by a different tyranny for many months now. Grant them all peace in their hearts and the ability to know when to support others, not tear them down. May they know the value of life’s little wonders and simple pleasures and may they make every moment with their children and loved ones count to the fullest.

Bjornlund wasn't going to allow us to have anyone place their hand on the Bible either when they swore in so only Patricia, Neil and myself did that. The Bible sat on the table the entire time in plain view and I also placed a small American flag on the table since there were none in sight in the room or anywhere else in that building that I could see.

Right off I questioned David Wolk's signature on the hearing notice letter sent to Patricia and dated October 5, 2001. It was illegible and looked forged to me so I questioned its authenticity. I told Bjornlund it appeared to look like the same sort of writing I'd been seeing on the 6:00 o'clock news on the bombed out walls in Afghanistan. After much debate Barbara Crippen finally spoke up and vouched for Wolk and that it was indeed his signature.

Bjornlund proceeded to tell Patricia that the 'burden of proof' was on her to establish she was able to provide her children with a minimum course of study. I presented Bjornlund with a copy of Patricia's course of study and a copy of her parental report that she sent in with her re-enrollment. The course of study goes far beyond the minimum and that seemed to be a problem for those in the room. They were concerned that Patricia's 'standards' and 'expectations' for her children were too high! Say what?!

Others in the room were Natalie Casco (DOE), Barbara Crippen (DOE), Neil Randall (state rep), Graig Kelly (DOE), Charles Hurt (Supervisory Union lawyer) and eventually Chris Bonavita (spec.ed.), Karl Anderson (lawyer), Kathleen Kelz (spec.ed.), and Pam Spinney (DOE). Lori Ableson (spec. ed.) was on speaker-phone.

Patricia was able to tell her side of the story first. She was good. She was darn good and didn't appear to be intimidated by all the suits. She'd encountered many of these people before through the special education program and seem determined not to let them railroad her and her children anymore. She'd caught so many of them in their lies that she even confronted them about it. Patricia also made is clear to them she was not happy with the mistreatment she and her children have received from these people in the past.

Chris Bonavita was the first to testify for the state. She came into the room with her lawyer, Karl Anderson. She wouldn't swear in with her hand on the Bible so Patricia and I left the room during her testimony in protest. After Bonavita testified we came back into the room and Bjornlund asked if we had any questions for her. Patricia asked Bonavita how long she had Patricia's children in her special ed. classes at Fair Haven. Evidently Bonavita only had the children for 11 school days but could make a judgment based on that short amount of time. Since we had made our point about the swearing in we stayed for the remaining testimonies.

Crippen kept insisting that Patricia agreed to have her children assessed this summer but never followed through. According to Crippen the assessment was to be a part of Patricia's re-enrollment. I have to reread the agreement that was signed back in April but Patricia and I were under the impression that this 'assessment' was something 'separate' from any regular re-enrollment notification to the DOE. Patricia also testified on the 20th that she signed the agreement with Eric Parker 'under duress'! This was a thorn in the side for Crippen and Bjornlund. They accused me of 'coaching' Patricia into saying it but we already had that term in writing prior to this meeting and Crippen demanded that Patricia tell her what the word meant. After some discussion Patricia was allowed to look the word up. This created another thorn for Crippen.

Crippen had a cow when I tried to help Patricia find the word in the dictionary. They accused me of 'coaching' her again. That is when Patricia ripped Crippen a new one and told her the state was of accusing her of not knowing how to read or write so how did Crippen expect her to find the word in the dictionary? When Crippen denied that, we showed Crippen AND Bjornlund the hearing letter and page 2 that read:

"Patricia O'Dell is listed as the sole instructor for the home study program. During the years that your children attended public school, public school staff observed that Mrs. O'Dell was limited in her own abilities to read and write. In addition, the home study curricula that Mrs. O'Dell submitted for the 2000-2001 school year were replete with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Accordingly, I have a significant doubt as to your ability to provide instruction in a minimum course of study, as defined in 16 V.S.A. Section 906."

Patricia also ripped them about the high school diploma that she received from Mt. Anthony Union High School. If she is so stupid then why did they give her a diploma. She was under the impression she was smart enough for them to give her the diploma but if they think she's too stupid to homeschool with only a high school diploma then evidently they failed in teaching her anything. Patricia questioned them about the requirements for a parent to homeschool their own children. There are none. A parent doesn't even need a high school diploma in Vermont to homeschool their children.

Patricia found the word 'duress' in the dictionary and agreed that she definitely signed the agreement with Eric Parker 'under duress'. She understood every word in the definition including the word 'coerced'.

Patricia explained to Bjornlund that there were several reasons she never completed this assessment. Number one, there was never any set date that this assessment had to be completed by.

Number two, the state mandated she use a certified public school teacher or a private school teacher. Patricia could not find one who was willing to perform the assessments for free since she was living on a fixed income and the state made no mention of paying for these services.

Number three, the state mandated that Patricia have the children assessed at certain locations. Patricia and her family have been virtually homeless since their home in Fair Haven burned to the ground 3 days after Christmas last year (2000). They have been forced to live with relatives, friends or at motels. Patricia has also been working on selling her destroyed property in Fair Haven through a Realtor and using that income to purchase a new lot in S. Newfane, VT. The new property has taken up much of her time and income in preparation for winter. Besides needing to have the present structure torn down after years of vandalism she and her husband are in the process of getting another mobile home onto the property. The new structure needs to be winterized and readied for the family. Meanwhile, the new school district and local government keeps trying to place her under their thumbs.

Crippen accused Patricia of receiving all kinds of income from supporters and other homeschoolers and that she had no excuse for not being able to afford the assessments. I explained to Crippen that any money that was donated for Patricia's cause was used for specific things such as food, clothing, travel, and homeschooling materials. Many other donations came in the form of clothing, food, toys and homeschooling materials. Eric Parker's services were provided to Patricia at no expense. I'm not sure who picked up the tab on that. Patricia also pointed out to Crippen and the others that in case they hadn't noticed Eric Parker was NOT there in the room with her. She told them her impression of this 'assessment agreement' was intended to be a 'quick fix' for the DOE and Mr. Parker. The media and public were bearing down on the DOE at the time and they simply wanted an easy way out of the hole they dug for themselves. Patricia's case is so similar to Karen Maple's case in so many ways it was easy to see why the DOE was panicking.

Jumping ahead just a bit, Bjornlund claims he has never heard of 'Kerry' (Karen) Maple or her case. I find that hard to believe unless he just moved here or he is completely sheltered from the news in this state. Even Crippen and Casco feigned ignorance of Karen Maple's Supreme Court ruling in May 2000. I found that all quite amazing.

It was also explained to those in the room that Patricia had the good sense to acquire (free) secretarial services to help her with her enrollments, other correspondence and homeschooling. None of them seemed happy with the fact that others were willing to help Patricia and her children in any way they can.

Kathleen Kelz, Chris Bonavita and Lori Anderson have all NOT seen Patricia's children in over one and a half years. Natalie Casco, Barbara Crippen and Pam Spinney have NEVER met Patricia's children. They have no idea how far Patricia's children have progressed with homeschooling in the past two years. Patricia has had to do lots of remedial work with the older ones that were in school. These people complained about the sporadic attendance record and behavior problems of Patricia's children while they attended school. It was brought to their attention that Patricia's children have a perfect attendance record in their homeschool and that none of them have any signs of behavior problems in their homeschool.

Kathleen Kelz, a special ed teacher at Molly Stark Elementary School in Bennington, testified she taught Patricia's son, Andrew, phonics. Kathy Kelz also testified that she had Patricia's daughter, Samantha, in her special education classes and that she was teaching Samantha. That came as a surprise to Patricia since Samantha was never on any IEP and Patricia never agreed to place Samantha on any IEP or in special education classes. Somehow I suspect that what Kelz did is illegal.

Natalie Casco was asked by me what the consequences would be if Patricia decides not to re-enroll her children in the state's home study program. Casco's response was that Patricia would be considered truant. I asked Casco to read the definition of 'truant' in the dictionary. The definition is: 'a pupil who stays away from school without permission'. I pointed out to Casco that Patricia's children have her permission to stay away from the public school. Even my children have my permission to stay away from public school. Casco also informed us that the DOE has no control over truancy, its a matter that belongs to the local schools.

At some point in our discussions Bjornlund was shocked to find out that my two children sitting in on this meeting were NOT enrolled with the DOE. He said something to the effect that I just told him this on tape and that I must be breaking some sort of law. Natalie has known for many years about this but like she said, it is a local matter. I honestly think the DOE throws the truancy issue into the parents' faces as an intimidation tactic. In Patricia's case it isn't working and that frustrates them because it is one less way of controlling her. My suspicion is that Patricia's children are still on the school roles somewhere and unless the DOE can get Patricia to agree to keeping them on IEP's and forcing the other two onto IEP's those schools will either have to pay back the state and federal (and possibly Medicaid) funds and will no longer receive the thousands of dollars for them.

Finally folks, we can lay to rest any rumor that Casco never registered her children with the DOE when she was homeschooling. Casco testified under oath that her children have ALWAYS been enrolled with the Home Study program from the time she started homeschooling them to the time she stopped homeschooling them, including before she started working at the DOE.

Casco and Crippen were unaware of any state or federal law that requires the schools to offer special ed services but parents weren't required to accept them. Seems to me that issue was argued before the VT Supreme Court in the Karen Maple case. They claimed they weren't familiar with Karen's case before the Supreme Court. Of course, when we tried to ask questions of Casco (especially Casco) or the others Crippen was jumping in all over the place objecting to this and objecting to that. When Patricia tried to object to any thing being said about her that appeared to be lies Bjornlund kept shutting her up and told her she had to wait. There was definitely a double standard going on in that room.

It was difficult to try to establish anything with the constant objections and interruptions by Crippen and Bjornlund but we managed to get a few questions in and show that Patricia was providing what the state called a minimum course of study and more. We tried to establish that Casco has a tendency to base the decisions she makes at the DOE on her personal feelings. You'd thought she'd seen a ghost when I asked her if she knew who Jill and Alan Hayes were. Casco had informed us that the decision to allow a homeschool enrollment to go through was entirely hers. That is quite a bit of power for just one person to have especially when that person has been known to sign her name to letters ostracizing homeschooling families within her own church and sending religious materials through the DOE mailings to homeschoolers.

Spinney, the DOE special ed 'triple E' monitor, testified that 'learning impairment' is the equivalent of 'mental retardation' and that learning impairments NEVER go away. She also said that IQ's can NEVER be raised. She diagnosed Patricia's children as mentally retarded by simply reading the IEP's, psychological reports and assessments and because she believes EVERYTHING that is written in them. She has NEVER met Patricia's children and had only met Patricia at this meeting. Lori Ableson later testified over the phone that 'learning impairment' was NOT the equivalent of 'mental retardation'. Now I ask you, do either one of them know what they are talking about?

At times when you just sat and listened to these folks talking among themselves you could swear they were speaking an entirely different language with all their edu-babble and educationese lingo. It was amazing to see how locked into their own little world of forced public schooling they were. They had no clue that there is a whole other 'real world' out there, one that has a Constitution that protects people and parents like Patricia from people like them.

At the end of the meeting Patricia wanted a statement read to the group and placed on record. I'll include it here but I must tell you that about half way through this statement Bjornlund once again interrupted (I assumed because he didn't like what he was hearing--I'm not sure but he may have mentioned his wife is a school teacher) me and wouldn't let me finish. That is when Patricia proceeded to chime in and rip Bjornlund a new one. She went up one side and down the other of all of them in the room. She was great! I simply sat back and let her rip. She must have gone on for about five minutes. When she finished Bjornlund asked if I wanted to continue. I told him I thought Patricia did a pretty good job of it and there was nothing I could possibly add to what she just said. I placed the statement back into my folder. The following is the signed statement that was also distributed to the press after the meeting:

As you stand in the rotunda of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC one is inspired by his words:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Patricia O’Dell too has vowed to fight those who would deny her children an education.

It is with a brave heart that Patricia O’Dell confronts her accusers who have chosen to deny her her constitutional and God-given parental rights. It is with determination that Patricia O’Dell will go forward and homeschool her children without the interference of Vermont Department of Education tyrants who have failed her children enormously.

Unlike hundreds of other non-compliant homeschooling parents here in the state of Vermont, Patricia has given the Vermont Department of Education and its public schools the courtesy of enrolling her children in the state’s home study program. With this enrollment however, she has discovered that certain individuals within the Department of Education and the public schools have accepted her signature on the enrollment notification as permission to abuse their authority to the extent of harassment, torment and persecution of Patricia and her children.

Patricia O’Dell will no longer tolerate being singled out for harassment and abuse by those working at the Department of Education Home Study Unit and by those working as special education instructors in the public schools. She will no longer tolerate the abuse and persecution of public school administrators and will do every thing in her power to protect her children from these people.

Patricia O’Dell will work diligently to keep her constitutional and God-given parental rights in tact while she continues to homeschool her four children without interference from state and school officials.

Patricia O’Dell hereby officially withdraws her consent for any school district or supervisory union in which her children reside, in the state of Vermont, to submit claims to Medicaid for payment of cost for any special education and/or related services. She understands that it is her right to withdraw her consent at any time in writing and has done so with letters to the Newfane Elementary School, Leland and Gray High School and the Vermont Department of Education.

Patricia O’Dell will not accept any special education services for her children at this time and has the right to do so according to law. She cannot be forced to accept those services which her children are eligible to receive.

Patricia O’Dell has signed and submitted copies of the Hatch Amendment Letter to members of both schools in her district opting out of any and all instruction by members of those schools.

This summer Patricia O’Dell was required, under duress, to meet the demands of the Department of Education to have her children assessed by a certified public school teacher or a private school teacher in order to gain favor of a hearing officer and DOE lawyer, Barbara Crippen. These were demands that Patricia was expected to pay for out of pocket and demands that the Department of Education knew full well Patricia would have difficulty meeting. These demands were also requirements that are not required of other homeschoolers. Patricia continues to search for someone suitable to perform the assessments but meanwhile re-enrolled, in good faith, with the Department of Education Home Study Unit because she knows of their penchant for truancy accusations.

Patricia O’Dell would like to see the investigation into the possibility that her children’s former, and possibly present, school has accepted and used state and federal moneys earmarked for her children although her children have not been in attendance of that school for quite some time. She would also like to see an investigation into whether her former school has accepted Medicaid moneys AND school budget moneys for the same purpose.

Patricia O’Dell seeks a written and public apology from Education Commissioner David Wolk, Department of Education Lawyer Barbara Crippen, ALL members of the Vermont Department of Education’s Home Study Unit including Natalie Casco, members of the Fair Haven Elementary School and from members of the Molly Stark Elementary School for their false accusations against her and for their mistreatment of her and her children.

As I remember details about the meeting I will send them along. Feel free to share this information with others if you like.

Meanwhile, Patricia and her family are trying to get their new home established. They are in need of some help and could use some winter clothes for the children, food (especially canned & dry goods), household supplies such as furniture, bedding, dishes, appliances, lumber and building materials, wood for a woodstove, educational toys and homeschooling supplies, ESPECIALLY A COMPUTER AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR IT. The children range from 7 years to 15 years (Andrew 15, Samantha 13, Annie 10 and Elizabeth 7).

Patricia new mailing address is: Patricia O'Dell, P.O.Box 63, E. Dover, VT 05341.

If anyone would like to donate a few dollars here and there in a Christmas card for her please feel free to send it along. Please remember they lost their home to a fire a year ago only 3 days after Christmas and the children witnessed it all, including the loss of their pets. Patricia is determined not to go on welfare and has managed to keep from having mortgage payments on her new property. Quite an accomplishment if you ask me. Think of the money we all spend on interest.

Here's something for your website:

Source: The Curmudgeon Newsletter--A Vermont Newsletter With An Attitude!

21 November 2001

HORSE WHIPPING IS TOO GOOD FOR COMPLIANT HOMESCHOOLERS

by Cindy Wade

Compliant homeschooling parents ought to be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped.

After attending a state run Home Study Inquisition yesterday in a state owned building in downtown Rutland I am convinced, now more than ever, that homeschoolers should never EVER enroll their children in the Vermont Home Study program. If they do then they deserve the hassles they get and they are no less guilty of educational abuse as are the public schools and the Department of Education.

It was like the Land of Oz at this inquisition. There was the not-so-partial hearing officer bellowing like the great Oz; the cowardly home study coordinator who has sold her soul for the power of her job; the silver haired, stone faced Department of Education lawyer with no heart; and the 'having a bad hair day' special education teacher and the home study monitor with no brains! The poor homeschooling mom at this meeting simply wanted to go home and be left alone. She was probably wishing she was somewhere else, like Kansas maybe.

The arrogance in the room was so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. Each and every special education scarecrow--excuse me, teacher--was so proud of their schooling degrees and it didn't seem to bother them they know nothing about homeschooling. Not a one of them ever read books by or heard of Linda Dobson, or John Taylor Gatto, or John Stormer, or Charles J. Sykes. Only two of them were familiar with the name of John Holt.

Some pretty amazing things were said by these state paid tyrants and it was actually quite sad to see them all groveling for their pay checks. The most outstanding thing about this inquisition was the 'conclusion' that a couple of these scarecrows came to about the Course of Study that was submitted by Patricia, the homeschooling mom, with her re-enrollment notice. They claimed Patricia's 'standards' and 'expectations' for her children were too high. Too high?! I'm still scratching my head over that one.

One scarecrow in particular really stands out when it comes to no-brainers and this one is a top-dog at the Department of Education's Home Study Unit. Hang onto your ruby slippers for this one, folks! This scarecrow insists that 'learning impaired' is the equivalent to 'mentally retarded' and swore under oath to that. If that's not a wake-up call to you homeschooling parents out there, get this: she can conclude for you that your child is mentally retarded even though she has never met them! You ask yourself is she telepathic? No. Psychopathic? Maybe, but she swears she can come to these conclusions all on her own by simply reading your child's IEP's, assessment reports and psychological reports alone. Ask this same brain-dead scarecrow if a 'learning impaired' child can ever get a college degree she will tell you unequivocally 'never'! Even if they hung out in college for 20 years and completed all the course work. Sorry, no degree--you're retarded because she says so!

Now didn't some public school teacher tell Nancy Edison that her 8 year old son, Tommy, was learning impaired/retarded and was unteachable? Well, Nancy wasn't going to settle for that teacher's diagnosis of her son, especially since she knew her son better than that teacher did. So Nancy took little Tommy home, built a classroom in the cellar of her house and homeschooled him for the next ten years or so. As I recall I think little Tommy eventually grew up and invented some sort of gadget called a light-bulb. And wasn't a learning impaired and unruly little girl called Helen thought to be unteachable? Heck, she couldn't even see or hear anything. No thanks to public schools little Miss Keller grew up, went on to college and was smarter than most 'normal' college grads today with their masters degrees and PhD's.

How many of you homeschoolers out there who pulled your children out of public school saw a change for the better even within the first month or two? Still hanging onto those slippers? These characters in this Land of Oz haven't seen hide nor hair of Patricia's children for over one and a half years! The heartless Department of Education lawyer, the cowardly Home Study consultant and the brainless wonder Home Study special education monitor have NEVER even met Patricia's children.

Do you homeschooling parents out there honestly want people like this, who hide out in their ivory towers, to sit in judgment and control of your child's life? If you think you're doing yourself and your child a favor by enrolling them in the Department of Education Home Study program, think again. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for doing so if it makes you feel special and obedient. Then reach around and slap yourself across the face and wake up to the fact that you're in cahoots with these characters. They've decided 'they know what's best' for YOUR children.

One such Masters-degree-toting special education teacher sat right at that table yesterday and proceeded to declare she 'knew what was best for Patricia's children' and that Patricia 'didn't know what was best' for her own children. At that point, while I was picking my jaw up off the table, I kind of half expected this woman's toes to start curling up until she completely disappeared. I even wondered if I threw water on this woman would she melt?

If any of you parents and tax payers out there think for one moment that the public schools and the Department of Education are all about education and the welfare of children, think again. They are all about money and control. They are all about people who, for one reason or another, 'thought' they were going into education and may have sincerely had hearts or brains or courage at some point in their naive young lives. They never left schooling. They spent their entire youths attending grade schools, junior high schools, and high schools. They led 'school centered' lives. The only life they knew and were comfortable with.

From high school they went right into the classrooms of their colleges and universities. Again, familiar and comfortable surroundings. From there, toting their degrees and educational theory baggage with them, they stepped back into the classrooms of the elementary, junior and high schools. They've never left the system. They've never lived any other life. They know little of the real world or alternatives to learning.

Locked into their world of 'schooling' they now have bills to pay, families to support and reputations to defend. They've learned to grovel and hoodwink for their paychecks. They've learned to manipulate parents and taxpayers in order to keep their livelihood and advance their agendas. They've banded together into unions to over-power parents, taxpayers and legislators. They've ignored studies, reports and proof that what they do has 'dumbed down' generations of Americans. They get defensive when you question their abilities so they turn around and label themselves 'professional'. In other words, they've sold their souls for a few silver coins.

As I left this inquisition at the end of the day I was feeling only one emotion. I was sad. I was feeling sadness for the great, all powerful Oz himself, bellowing and huffing, knowing full well he honestly believed he had a job to do or he might not be able to pay the mortgage company, or the grocers, or the utility bills. Had he promised his loving wife a future holiday together? How was he going to pay for all of this? Why, with the paycheck he'll receive from the state taxpayers, of course.

I was sad for the silver haired, heartless, cold-as-metal DOE lawyer whose livelihood also depends on the success of her efforts to maintain control over the lives of four more innocent children.

I was sad for the cowardly Home Study consultant who has completely set aside her mother's intuition and instincts in exchange for the power and recognition of her newfound job. After years of homeschooling her own children without someone like her looking over her shoulders she has sold out to her colleagues to be more than just a mom--like that job was never going to be the most important one she ever had.

I was sad for the younger munchkin special education teacher who sat quivering beside her bewildered lawyer. This timid creature gave testimony against Patricia's children after having them in her classroom for only eleven days. I knew this young, naive, wet-behind-the-ears woman was well on her way to becoming like the others there in the room. With a toddler of her own at home though, maybe there is hope she won't make the same mistakes. Then again, maybe she'll use all her educational training and theory baggage to experiment on her own child, too.

I was sad for the two brainless and almost comical special education teachers because they were simply angry, disillusioned and pathetic. I've known bag ladies with more dignity and honor that these two. If they had had a banner around their chests that read: 'Look at me, I have all these degrees and I've done my time. I've put up with all these kids for all these years. Where is my recognition and pat on the back for sticking it out?', it couldn't have been more obvious how miserable these two are.

So, if you ever find yourself sitting at one of these Home Study Inquisitions as the defendant and the burden of proof is on you, you probably deserve to be there for the simple reason that you enrolled your child in the Vermont Home Study program. My instincts tell me Patricia is done with the enrollment process. She made it plenty clear to them that no matter what they decide she has no intentions of giving up homeschooling her children because she can do a far better job than they did. And, if Vermont parents are willing to give over their parental duties and their Constitutional and God-given rights to the Department of Education's Land of Oz, maybe a horse whipping is too good for you. Maybe you should be forced to live in that Land of Oz with these people for awhile. At least that way the scars won't show.

(Cindy Wade homeschools her two children and does not enroll them with the state's home study program.)

Patricia O'Dell's Final Brief to Hearing Officer (here by permission from Patricia O'Dell):

Final Brief to:

Hearing Officer, Bruce Bjornlund, c/o VT DOE, 120 State St., Montpelier, VT 05620-2501

From: Patricia O’Dell, P.O. Box 63, E. Dover, VT 05341

Date: November 28, 2001

You are being asked by the State of Vermont to pass a moral judgment on my fitness as a home schooling parent to home school my own children. You are not being asked to make a judgment based on non-compliance with the home study laws. The opposite is true. The state has been out of compliance with the state’s own home school laws. It is my understanding that your ruling must be based on fact and law, not based on emotions and innuendoes.

The home school laws do not require that a parent have a certain level of education or to have any special skills. The DOE has to admit that at the hearing. The DOE is trying to create a new law that does not exist in current law. However, since I am a high school graduate from the state of Vermont, if the state is concerned about my fitness as a Vermont high school graduate, they will have to admit that their own public school system is terribly deficient. If they are claiming that I cannot read and write properly, then how come I was awarded a high school diploma from a state approved public high school. They should be the ones on trial, not me.

The law states that (E) If the Commissioner has information that creates a significant doubt about whether a home study program can or will provide a minimum course of study for a student who has not yet enrolled, the Commissioner shall call a hearing.

I find it necessary to point out that this law only applies to students who are not yet enrolled. According to what constitutes a legal enrollment, the home study laws are also very specific. According to the home study regulations, my children were lawfully enrolled in the home study program as I will outline below. The law should not be twisted to fit the whims of the DOE.

It was not until February of last year, 2001, that the DOE attempted to disrupt my home schooling privileges based on the personal bias of Vermont public school personnel. This was beyond the scope of the DOE’s authority as established by the home schools regulations. The rules clearly state that “if the Commissioner has information that creates a significant doubt about whether a home study course can or will provide a minimum course of study for a student who has not yet been enrolled, the Commissioner may call a hearing. At the hearing, the home study program shall establish that it has complied with this section and will provide the student with a minimum course of study”. However before such a hearing can be called, there are certain time restrictions imposed by law on the state. Since I properly provided the minimum course of study to the appropriate authorities at the DOE. They had only two choices to respond at that time.

Notice of home study program, Section 166b (B):

Within 14 days of receiving an enrollment notice, the commissioner or designee shall send the home study program a written acknowledgment of receipt. The acknowledgment shall include a determination: 1) either that the enrollment notice is complete and no further information notice is needed, or specifically identifying information required under subsection (a) which is missing. If information is missing, the home study program shall provide the additional information in writing within 14 business days; and 2) either that the child may be enrolled 45 days after the enrollment notice was received. At any time before the child may be enrolled, the Commissioner may order such a hearing may be held. After notice of such a hearing us received, the child shall not be enrolled.

In other words, the Commissioner or his designee was obligated to call for this hearing before the 45 day time period elapsed after receiving my home school enrollment notice with attached minimum course of study. That did not happen.

I had sent the enrollment notice of my intent to home school my children and outlined the minimum course of study. Fourteen days passed and I did not receive a written acknowledgment or notice that information in my notice was incomplete. More than forty-five calendar days also passed from the time the DOE received my enrollment notice. I received no written notice from the Commissioner or his designee prior to that 45 calendar period ending alleging that the Commissioner (or his designee) had significant doubts that my home study program would not provide the minimum course of study to my children. There was no written notice within the time restrictions in which the DOE must enter an objection.

In fact, 6 months passed before the Commissioner’s designee, Doug Walker, sent a letter to me, in February of 2001, and stated that they had concerns over my personal ability to home school, ignoring the fact that there are no requirements in the home school law that states I must meet certain requirement to qualify as a home school parent. They are trying to create new rules as they go. The second concern was regarding my children’s special education needs. Furthermore, I was under duress to satisfy the personal bias of the DOE and not the legal requirement of the home study program regulations. I hastily and regrettably entered into an agreement, which I now view as illegal and discriminatory as well. Also, no deadline was mentioned in the agreement as written by the DOE to complete an assessment. The state went beyond the law and narrowed the “progress assessment” options for annual assessment of each home study student. I believe this is another illegal action by the DOE. There are many options allowed in which home schooled students may be assessed under the home study regulations. Nothing in the home study regulations gives the DOE this authority or oversight to demand which type of assessment I must chose. Therefore, I submit that the agreement I signed under duress was illegal anyway and false pretenses.

These are the assessment options listed that a home study parent can choose from, under the Vermont Home Study regulations:

1) a certified Vermont teacher 2) a teacher from an approved public school 3) a teacher advisory service report from a publisher of a commercial curriculum together with a portfolio of the student’s work 4) a report prepared by the parents or the student’s instructor together with a portfolio of the student’s work 5) the complete results of a standardized achievement test administered by a qualified person 6) the complete results of a standardized achievement test administered by an approved Vermont school, at the option of the school or district.

Despite my misgivings, I had made a good faith effort to comply with the agreement, but I unable to find a certified Vermont teacher or private school teacher to assess my children who would not charge a fee I could afford. I thought under the state and federal laws, my children were/are to receive a FREE and appropriate education. If the assessments are not FREE and are mandated by the state, then I shouldn’t have to pay for them.

You may also take note, that when my children attended public school, they were allowed to take ‘out-of-level’ or ‘off-level’ ‘alternative’ assessments as opposed to the state mandated assessment tests. The problem is that my children were never given alternative off-level assessments to my knowledge. If they were, I was never notified or allowed to see the results. I imagine the school district did not include my children in any alternative assessments as they were afraid my children would drag their ratings down. As it stands now, the Molly Stark school, where my children received some of their public education and special education, is now designated as a low performing school who needs state oversight.

Referring back to the home study regulations that apply, I presume you are obligated to uphold and enforce the laws that have been enacted, as an officer of the court. I once again remind you, that no matter what excuses the DOE made as to why they were so late in objecting to my home study program, the Commissioner, or his designee, failed to comply in the time restrictions, defined by law, by sending me a written notice long after the 45 calendar day period had expired. Lame excuses do not justify the DOE’s failure to object within the legal time frame.

Their other objection to my home study program was that I refused special education services for my children. Special education is an entitlement. Even though a hearing officer may have a right to order a comprehensive evaluation for my children on the grounds that they may need a special education evaluation, the law does not go beyond that. But the Commissioner has not requested a hearing for that reason. State and federal law, like IDEA, does not obligate a parent to accept special education and related services. The Commissioner’s designee failed to send a written notice to me within the 45 allotted calendar days after receiving my home school notice, Since the following did not occur within the time restriction required by law, then this hearing itself may be illegal. The regulations also state, “Nothing in this section requires that a home study program follow the program or methods used by the public schools.” So, a home schooling parent, like myself, cannot be required to follow a specialized program that is based on an IEP either. The content is supposed to be adapted to the age and ability of the child.

I also find it very troubling that VT DOE legal counsel,Barbara Crippen, admitted that she was unfamiliar with, as were you, about the highly publicized home schooling parent, Karen Maple case and the VT Supreme Court (Docket No. 99-351--May 26, 2000) decision. I would hope that you would research this Vt. Supreme Court decision before venturing to make a ruling that may well be in total conflict with their finding. To summarize the case, Karen’s Maple’s son was accused of being truant from public school, even though Karen had been home schooling, and was refusing to accept special education services through the public school for him. To put it as simply as I can, my understanding is that the Vt. Supreme Court ruled that Karen Maple’s son was not truant since it was her decision to keep him home and she had the right to refuse special education services for him. This case mirrors my current plight.

The problem, as I see it is this. The school districts in Vermont have failed to provide my children with a Free and Appropriate Education. They failed to teach them to read. They made minimal progress in both their regular education and special education programs. I have heard that in the first three years of school, children learn to read, and then after that, they read to learn. I believe that I can do a whole lot better. I am more invested in my children and their welfare that any strangers in the school districts. We should not be discriminated because we are poor and because we lost our home in a fire. We are in the process of rebuilding.

Isn’t it discriminatory to have lower expectations and set lower standards for my “handicapped” children. The state testified that the minimum course of study goes beyond the “minimum” expectations and that my standards have been set too high. I say that they have a double set of standards. A high standard for other public school children, but a lowered standard for mine. The State Board of Education has a mission statement: The State Board of Education shall sustain a vision of high skills, creative thinking, and love of knowledge and learning for every student by setting education policy that improves student achievement in a safe and healthy learning environment.

I entrusted my children to their care. My children were teased and harassed at school by other students. They were afraid to go to school at times. The records will demonstrate that I discussed the teasing with school staff. Nothing was ever done about it. My children did not feel safe.

I think the record will also support that my children did not receive an adequate education while attending public schools. I believe a thorough review of the records will demonstrate that the school districts failed to complete their comprehensive evaluations, that my child (perhaps children) were mis-classified, and that the IEP’s had been developed based on incomplete evaluations and erroneous evaluations. I will focus on Andrew as he was in public school the longest.

Prior to starting school, Andrew was enrolled in a Head Start Program. A Primary Project report was filled out by one of the staffers. This report, written on 4/2/92, identified as a standard Transition Form, provided a brief overview of Andrew by Laura Williams, Bennington Head Start Program. She observed that Andrew “appears to be emotionally stable”…and that his “fine motor skills were good.” She further observed that he is “very particular and takes his time to do a good job”…. She concluded, based on what, I don’t know, that he had not had as much exposure to a great deal of gross motor activity stating that he is “a little awkward, but with appropriate…. : She did not finish this sentence.

A screening was done on Andrew, 2/10/93, almost a year later, based on his teacher’s observation that Andrew was performing below the expected range for his age. Her concerns were related to his speech and language development. A screening was done (not a comprehensive evaluation) and the conclusion was that Andrew was behind his classmates. A recommendation was made to the Head Start program by the EES Director that a comprehensive evaluation be initiated. To my knowledge, a formal referral was never made.

I have since learned, that under Child Find, the district had a further obligation to seek out and identify children with suspected needs and initiate a formal request for a comprehensive evaluation. If their concerns were so grave at that time, then why did they fail to pursue the evaluation.

On 2/1/94, a year later, I signed a consent form for the Head Start Program to release confidential information to the public school as I had enrolled Andrew in Kindergarten. So they should have seen the same written information as outlined above. Andrew’s Kindergarten teacher wrote on his the 3rd and 4th quarter progress reports, that speech was a “major concern”. She also noted that Andrew was “not on an IEP and was not receiving services from a Speech Language Pathologist”. She felt his reading skills were below average. She then gave Andrew a Slosson Reading Readiness Test on June 2, 1994, without my consent, which he failed. However, despite his failure to pass this test, he was still promoted to the first grade. Something else does not add up. According to Andrew’s pupil progress report card for his third and fourth quarter that year, this same teacher stated that Andrew performed satisfactory. So despite the fact that she stated that “speech was a major concern” and the fact that he failed the reading readiness test she gave in June of 1994, he received satisfactory grades and was passed to the next grade.

When Andrew entered the first grade at the Catamount Elementary school, his teacher drafted goals for Andrew, a standard practice for each student. One of her stated goals, among others, was to help Andrew feel better about him self. She said he could do many things without help, through praise and encouragement: practice naming letters and sounds; counting, to paraphrase her report.

It wasn’t until Nov. 2, 1994, that a referral was actually made, by an Andrea Hogan, to the Instructional Support Team to have a meeting on Nov. 8, 1994. Her concern was worded, “Andrew entered school for the first time in Feb. of 1994. He is very low academically and socially.” There is no signature in the signature location of the case manager. I never received an invitation to attend this meeting, nor did I receive any meeting notes. In fact, there doesn’t appear to be any meeting notes as to what the Instructional Support Team decided to try. Also, conspicuously absent were the recommendations this team decided to implement. So how are we to know what instructional support was given to Andrew? In the records is a Parent Information Sheet that lists Andrew’s current information, birth and medical history, school history and speech-language history. This form was filled out by someone other than myself. The speech and language form was left pretty much blank. But speech and language had been a major concern for them.

Finally, on Jan. 20, 1995, a referral was made for Special Education Services by a Charles Young (who is later identified as the principal) two years after the staff first suspected that my son may have had a disability. I did not receive a written content of notice to attend this meeting. Next in the records, is a form,, dated 2/8/95, that was identified as an Initial Evaluation request for Information To Develop an Evaluation Plan. The signature again says Charles Young, but it does not match the first “Charles Young” signature on 1/20/95, which leads me to assume the same person also forged his signature a second time.

On 2/10/95, a Parent/Teacher Planning form was filled out. It identified Andrew’s strengths as “Knows letters and sounds; able to write understandable sentences by self; uses readiness skills in math”. Attached are the teacher’s quarterly reports. However, only the 1st quarterly report was completed by the teacher.

On 2/14/95, an Evaluation Plan form was completed by the Basic Staffing Team. The written notice of this meeting, addressed to me, was also dated that same day, 2/14/95. The Evaluation Plan listed a number of tests and other evaluations and information to be gathered or done on Andrew. None of these tests or purposes was ever explained to me. I was just expected to sign the Consent form, which I signed on 3/ 2/95.

Then the records get even more confusing at that time. The EPT obviously met without me on 2/14/95. One of the tests the EPT determined was necessary to a comprehensive evaluation was a Woodcock-Johnson Adaptive Behavior test, assigned to Brenda MacDonald, consulting teacher. It stated that the need for this test was to assess Andrew’s skills in independence and caring for his needs outside of school. Yet it seems this test was never done. There is no record of this evaluation in the files. The team commented, according to the meeting minutes, when they coded my son, that they expected the adaptive behavior scale would be in the same range as cognitive, academic and language scores. In other words, they presumed that Andrew would perform poorly on the ABS. But without this particular test, they lacked the information necessary to identify my child as Learning Impaired versus having a Learning Disability. If my child was mis-classified then, how could possibly create an IEP sufficient to his needs. Clearly, demonstrates as indifference toward their obligation to complete the comprehensive evaluation. Part of this comprehensive evaluation also included reviewing past records. A Child Rating Scale was done by Betsy Clune and was to be repeated at the end of the academic year. Since there is nothing further in the file, it appears that they did not repeat it at the end of the year.

The conclusion of the EPT (BST), on 4/30/95, once again, a meeting held without my participation, was that Andrew demonstrated a Learning Disability. The tests they administered indicated he was working more than 1 standard deviation below the mean in reading and written language. The team concluded that Andrew needed a developmental structured reading program (unspecified) and re-mediation of visual motor skills and fine motor written language. The records do not mention the completion of the Woodcock-Johnson Adaptive Behavior Test as agreed to by the team, that might have identified Andrew as Learning Impaired. One must also conclude, based on this and a new recommendation to have an OT screening to look at tracking, fine motor and visual skills, is that Andrew may have been erroneously mis-classified from the very first evaluation. The EPT (or BST) failed to complete the comprehensive evaluation as outlined in their initial planning meeting on 2/14/95. Which also raises the concern as to why they recommended that Andrew needed re-mediation of visual motor skills and fine motor written language skills. There was no OT, PT or ABS assessment done.

The Decision of Basic Staffing Team was dated 4/30/95 on a form addressed to me. It included that “If parent has any questions or concerns or would like to meet with the BST, call 447-7543.”On 5/1/95, there was, oddly enough, yet a second Notification Form of Basic Staffing Team Meeting to Determine Eligibility, to be held on 1/9/95 to determine if Andrew is eligible or continues to be eligible for special education services. Keep in mind that he had been found eligible on 4/30/95. Persons who had not been invited attended. The stated purpose of meeting was for an Initial Evaluation. Meeting minutes confirm that the discussion was for a comprehensive evaluation, i.e., medical, life circumstances, with attached recommendations: 1. Recommend OT screening, 2. Developmental Structured Reading Program, signed by Charles Young (I must point out that once again, this signature does not match his first signature, but it does match the second signature that appears to be forged).

The unexplained second BST’s decision was that, my son, Andrew, was eligible, yet again, for special education services under the disability category 2362.1, learning disability. An additional form, dated 5/95 is found in the file. It is a Student Information Form _Reading Skills: Level pp1. It outlined programs used: Project Read: Wright Group Story Box/ *Whole Language Strategies. It again states that Andrew “needs a Developmental Reading Program”. Math Skills: Level 1. Programs used: Math their Way; Addison-Wesley: Is gaining in beginning math skills. Has basic understanding of addition and subtraction, but is weak in all areas. Written Language Skills: Level-early phonetic. Expressive Language Skills- Can use beginning, middle and ending sounds in *inventive spelling. Social Skills: Has had 1 ½ years in school. Attending two different schools. Finds it difficult to make and maintain friends; often initiates social contact in less than desirable ways. Check list for Accommodations made in the classroom. Needs visual presentations.

On 5/9/95 is another set of meeting minutes identified as a second Basic Staffing Team meeting. It once again stated that the BST has found Andrew Veach eligible to receive special education services. “These services are described in the Individualized Education Program that was written for your child.” “The IEP Team recommends that following placement: Andrew needs a developmental structured reading program and recommendation of visual motor and fine motor skills. We recommend this placement because Andrew is significantly below his classmates (by one year in academic and social interactions).

Other placement options we considered were Chapter I. We rejected these options because “Not sufficient enough to meet Andrew’s needs”.” Handwritten notation on this form stated, “Consent form not signed.” This notice is signed by Maggie Freeman, Special Educator and is written on the same day that the IEP meeting was held. There is no prior written Content of Notice that an IEP meeting was to be held. A unsigned form for my parent signature was attached, when they mailed me their findings.

The next IEP was written a year later, but there was no formal review of the last IEP to see what goals and objectives had been measured and met. The IEP had been written to require that the goals and objectives were to be measured for very specific things in very specific ways. This was not done. Yet a new IEP was created with no baseline measures to start off with, and little carry over from one IEP to the next. The same was true the next year. Then we get to the next IEP. Progress on his IEP’s were seldom measured or documented. What progress reports in the file were brief and very vague, basically stating that Andrew had made some progress, but progress was never clearly defined.

In 1998, a three year re-evaluation was planned for Andrew. The team wanted to look into 3 specific areas: whether Andrew has a learning disability, a language impairment or an OHI, an Attention Deficit Disorder. Dr. Paul Garrison did the achievement testing. He noted that Andrew’s IQ had dropped significantly since the last evaluation (1995). He said he could not explain this. Three years earlier, he had a Full Scale IQ score of 82 (verbal was 93, performance IQ was 73). It dropped to a Full Scale IQ of 70, with a verbal IQ of 80 and a performance IQ of 65. The most significant drop was in his verbal IQ. While Dr. Garrison was puzzled by this, I am afraid he was not aware of the “Matthew Effect” which I will explain. Here is another student’s case:

“Paul is a thirteen year old student with a Central Auditory processing Disorder and ADHD. When he entered Kindergarten, his skills were about 6 months behind his peers. By second grade, he was about 1.5 years behind his peers. By 4th grade, he was 2.5 years behind. On his most recent evaluation, his Full Scale IQ had dropped by 9 points. On his report cards, he received average grades.”

The answer to this question about Paul and his dropping IQ score was answered like this, “ IQ scores will often vary from evaluation from evaluation. In most cases, IQ scores don’t change dramatically unless there has been an unusual event (injury, trauma, etc.). When we see falling IQ test scores, we ask if this is due to the “Matthew Effect”.

“The “Matthew Effect” is a term coined by Keith Stanovich, a psychologist who has done extensive research on reading and language disabilities. The “Matthew Effect” refers to the idea that in reading (as in other areas of life), the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

“If children with disabilities do not receive adequate re-mediation, they read less - and learn less from reading - than non-disabled children. Because some IQ subtests measure information learned from reading, poor readers will score lower on these subtests. Over years, the “gap” between poor readers and good readers grows.”

Another example follows:

The “Matthew Effect” was a key issue in the James Brody case. James is a child from North Carolina who has dyslexia. James was found eligible for special education in 3rd grade. After 3 years of special education, he was re-tested. According to the new testing, his IQ dropped from 127 too 109. Two years later, James was retested again - his IQ had dropped even further.

Two experts, Dr. Rebecca Felton, from Southport, NC, and Dr. Rick Ellis, from Norfolk, VA., testified that James’ declining IQ test scores was an example of the Matthew Effect - and was evidence that James had not received appropriate re-mediation. The Administrative Law judge and the Review Officer agreed and found that the school district had not provided James with an appropriate education. To read the Review Officer’s Final Decision, go to http://www.wrightslaw.com/case_Brody_RO-decision.html

Dr. Margaret Kay, a psychologist from Pennsylvania, has also testified to the Matthew Effect in a special education case. Dr. Kay suggested this link for more information about the Matthew Effect: http://www.edc.org/NECAC/resources/l-firstch.html

The article notes that, “Students who do not learn to read during the first three years of school experience enormous difficulty when they are subsequently asked to ‘read to learn’. Teaching students to read by the end of third grade is the single most important task assigned to elementary schools.”

Two other special education cases also reflect my belief that Andrew did not receive an appropriate education while in the public schools and on IEP’s. In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Carter v. Florence County School District Four [920 F.2d. 156 (4th Cir. 1991) at 159] found the public school’s IEP to be inadequate because rather than aiming at grade level equivalency, it “allowed Shannon to continue to fall behind her classmates at an alarming rate and therefore ensured the program’s inadequacy from it’s inception”

I would like to interject here, that when Andrew’s IEP for 1998 was drafted with Kathleen Keltz as his case manager, despite the fact that he was in the fifth grade, the team recommended in his IEP that material be represented to Andrew with On-Grade material. What they meant by On-grade, was to present material to Andrew with first and second grade material. They decided that Andrew’s grades would also be based on his IEP and not on the fifth grade curriculum. The IEP only created a wider gap between Andrew and his peers.

In a Virginia state education agency decision, a hearing officer found that even though a special needs student was mainstreamed with regular education students, received passing grades, and was monitored regularly, the student did not receive the amount of “educational benefit” required by the federal “free and appropriate public education” standard. The hearing officer stated “[m]ore is required than passing grades in regular education classes, by a handicapped child for such a child to receive ‘educational benefit’.” Here the hearing officer relied on the lack of progress shown by low standardized test scores and determined that on the basis of those standardized test scores the student, in fact, made no progress in the areas which his special needs program was intended to address.

There are very distinct parallels to my own son’s public school experience. When he was in first grade, he was only a year behind his peers. By the time he was in 5th grade, the gap had widened. He was now 4 years behind his peers.

Mrs. Kathleen Keltz, who testified at the hearing, commented in a school record that Andrew had actually shown regression in reading. She also testified at the hearing that IQ scores do not change. Then how does she explain Andrew’s decline in IQ scores if they don’t change. I believe the Matthew Effect explains what can alter an IQ significantly as a result of inappropriate re-mediation. Also, the record support that Andrew was passed from grade to grade, despite that he fell further and further behind his peers.

One of the questions listed for the comprehensive evaluation was Question # 3. Are there any health or medical issues regarding motor skills or issues related to attending and concentrating? Answer to question #3. “There are no known health problems related to attention and concentration.” No evaluation was ever obtained by the school for a physician’s opinion as required by special education law.

* Vt. Regs., 2362 Eligibilit,y a student must receive a “ comprehensive evaluation (Rule 2362.2) For OHI (ADD/ADHD), a physician’s opinion is necessary to make this determination. Vt Reg. 2362.1 (g) page 20. The evaluation was slip-shod at best. Note: Attachments I received with the EPT report also have discrepancies: I believe the attached page from a older 1995 birth and medical history is attached as well as the teacher’s ADHD Rating Scale. Missing is the parent’s ADHD rating scale. There are 2 Nurse’s Medical Report attached. The EPT met on 4/8/98 to make the disability determination. The first nurse’s report is dated 11/98 and the second nurse’s report is dated 5/1/99. Also, they fail to have included a developmental review or school record review to look at attentional concerns in the classroom since Andrew began school. There was no OT report either.

· Mary Albyn, the O. T., was not present at the meeting on 4.8.99. Her report is also attached to my file, but is dated a day after the eligibility determination meeting, on 4.9.99.

More importantly, the EPT has only 30 days in which to write and IEP and determine placement. The last IEP services ended on 4/8/98. A new IEP was not written nor put into place until 9/17/99.

I wish to summarize some of the IEP. I want to point out, in particular, under item 6., “Include strategies, positive behavioral interventions and supports to address behavior issues when the behavior interferes with the student’s learning or other students’ learning. The column is marked N/A (not applicable. In other words, Andrew’s behaviors were not noted as problematic.

The IEP also stated that “Andrew will receive reading instruction & speech articulation outside the regular classroom. Andrew needs a highly individualized ed program and a quiet environment to hear speech sounds.”

The Concerns listed in the IEP : -Reading very weak 1.0 Slosson 9/98 has shown regression since comprehensive evaluation -Is easily distracted -Math computation weak -Low self-esteem

These goals and objectives in his IEP were to be met with the following accommodations: Prefers to work in quite setting. Modified spelling list, grade 2-3 On-grade-level material to be read to him; modify and reduce written assignments- include hands on activities. Math manipulatives, and calculator to be used as decided by teacher Stress key concepts Adapted tests Involve activities to foster self-esteem such as Project Adventure

The record is silent on whether these interventions were actually implemented. The progress reports were so very brief and lacks specific information related to the IEP.

Mrs. Keltz progress reports are pretty generalized. She stated that he has picked up some general knowledge and concepts but has not mastered any set progression of skills. He can apply a few rules in reading and spelling words, and has made some progress in writing and math. Mrs. Keltz also noted in her progress report notes that Andrew as doing well on ‘Grade 2’ spelling words. Again, I want to point out that Andrew is in the 5th grade.

His next IEP, as submitted in discovery by the Vt. DOE, shows once again, that an IEP meeting was held for Andrew on 6/4/99. His last IEP, however, was valid until 6/17/99. Those present at this meeting are listed as myself, LEA Rep., Kathleen Keltz,, Steve Zimmer, Special Educator, Gail Crowley, Classroom teacher, and Sue Maguire, Principal, Barbara Barcomb, Speech Therapist, Lori Ableson, CCC/SEP, Speech-Language Pathologist. The record shows that Lori Ableson did not attend.

Again, the record supports that behaviors of Andrew were not a concern, as checked off on the Required IEP Planning Check list. The last IEP was not reviewed to see what should be carried over. In this new IEP, Andrew’s services are cut back. Instead of providing Andrew with a specific developmental reading program 5 times a week for 45 minutes, his reading time was cut back to 30 minutes 5 times week. This seems very odd considering his growing gap in reading achievement.

The IEP team made no attempt to specify how Andrew would improve his spelling of phonetic and irregular words. Distressing also, is the fact that now Andrew will improve his math skills to a 4.0 level as demonstrated by the Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills by 6/2000. Keep in mind, that he was never given the Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills, as required in his IEP, to determine if he met the goals of improving his math skills to a 3.0 level.

Speech/Language Goals were specifically outlined, but there was no service time set aside for speech/language therapy each week. No one was assigned to provide Speech/Language therapy to him. He is only listed as getting Written Language/Spelling for 30 minutes 5 times a week with a special education assistant in the resource room in a small group, not even individual attention. That is a far cry from speech and language therapy.

Andrew, of course, was promoted to the 6th grade with passing grades, but no authentic measures of his IEP goals and objectives. The trend to remediate Andrew’s reading disability was to continue to teach him reading on a second or early third reading level.

Andrew’s former special education teacher and Pam Spinney of the DOE gave testimony that was conflictual. Mrs. Keltz and Pam Spinney testified that Mental Retardation and Learning Impairment were the same, while Lori Ableson explained on the speaker phone that they weren’t. Mrs. Keltz testified that Andrew needed a specific program while Lori Ableson testified that educational materials could be purchased at K-Mart’s. How’s that for consistency.

To summarize, the state is overstepping their authority by their own failure to comply with the home study regulations. The school districts have failed to provide my children with a FAPE. I have no faith in the public school system or in the special education programs that were provided to my children.

Respectfully submitted by:

Patricia O’Dell

Date: 11/28/01

PO’D/FD

cc:

David Wolk, Commissioner

Neil Randall, State Rep.

Cindy Wade, Advocate

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.