Replies

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