Friday, November 30, 2012

Death at School: Parents Protest Dangerous Discipline for Autistic, Disabled Kids - ABC News

Death at School: Parents Protest Dangerous Discipline for Autistic, Disabled Kids - ABC News


Student was assigned to the ED classroom at Underwood
Elementary for Twenty-four (24) school days.  During this time, the Student was placed in the
Room on at least Fourteen (14) different school days, ranging from 420 minutes a day in the
Room to 70 minutes.  The Student was placed in the Room for an equivalent of over nine (9) full
days (3,860 minutes – 420 minutes in a full school day) (DEX 50, p. 1503).  Of the twenty-four
(24) school days the Student was absent three (3) days, and received out-of-school suspension
six (6) days.  (DEX 50)  There is only one (1) day during the 2003-2004 school year (24
attendance days) that Student remained in the ED classroom the entire day.  (DEX 50).

Death at School: Child Restraints Spark Controversy | Video - ABC News

Death at School: Child Restraints Spark Controversy | Video - ABC News

Congress slams NIH, CDC reps for evading vaccine/autism evidence

Congress slams NIH, CDC reps for evading vaccine/autism evidence

Twice Exceptional Children (2e) - Wrightslaw

Twice Exceptional Children (2e) - Wrightslaw

Eligibility for Special Ed: Grades, IQ Scores, Evaluations

Eligibility for Special Ed: Grades, IQ Scores, Evaluations

Lawmakers Look into Federal Response to Rising Rates of Autism | C-SPAN

Lawmakers Look into Federal Response to Rising Rates of Autism | C-SPAN

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Autism Society - Autism Society President Scott Badesch Testimony to Congress

Autism Society - Autism Society President Scott Badesch Testimony to Congress

Individuals with Disabilities Face Increased Risks of Abuse - Christian Reformed Church

Individuals with Disabilities Face Increased Risks of Abuse - Christian Reformed Church

ABC News Investigation: Moms Fight Back Against Harsh Methods to Restrain Students with Special Needs - ABC News

ABC News Investigation: Moms Fight Back Against Harsh Methods to Restrain Students with Special Needs - ABC News

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Happenings | International Coalition for Autism and All Abilities

Happenings | International Coalition for Autism and All Abilities

New Federal Data: Graduation Rates Reveal Achievement Gaps for KS & MO « KC Education Enterprise

New Federal Data: Graduation Rates Reveal Achievement Gaps for KS & MO « KC Education Enterprise

Training Lions & Tigers: Discipline and Children with ADHD

Training Lions & Tigers: Discipline and Children with ADHD

Behavior Problems & Discipline: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know by Sue Whitney and Pam Wright - Wrightslaw.com

Behavior Problems & Discipline: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know by Sue Whitney and Pam Wright - Wrightslaw.com

Doing Your Homework: Behavior Problems: It Isn't Okay Just to Teach the Easy Kids by Sue Whitney - Wrightslaw

Doing Your Homework: Behavior Problems: It Isn't Okay Just to Teach the Easy Kids by Sue Whitney - Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw - Functional Behavioral Assessments: What? Why? How? Who? by Stephen Starin, Ph.D.

Wrightslaw - Functional Behavioral Assessments: What? Why? How? Who? by Stephen Starin, Ph.D.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

I Think That They Call It Political Double Talk. I Call It Lies

His Remarks Will Be In Red.  Mine Will Be In Black


As for a committee on autism and special needs in R-7, I have spoken to the Superintendent and Board, which relates to why he spoke to you. If that committee is formed, you will have one voice, although I would like to see D on it too, along with others, such as J. That will be up to R-7. Given your antagonism toward me and them, you are most fortunate you are being considered to be on such a committee. I would encourage you to consider changing your approach for the sake of LSASG's credibility and influence with R-7 and beyond. Your current approach is only isolating and alienating yourself from me and others who are doing much to help children with autism and their families.

The Superintendent assured me that Jeff Grisamore didn't have the district's ear and that the meetings between the district and me had nothing to do with Grisamore.
"Rep grisamore is getting ahead of himself. There have been no follow up discussions about any ideas that may have been mentioned in some setting. Honestly, I do not recall discussing this committee but I may have forgotten. It happens. My invitation to discuss the issues is for you only at this time. You and I can discuss together where all of this goes from there. I hope this clarifies my intention. I do not go into this knowing where we will end up but do feel our dialogue has the potential to make us a better district and help you better understand our challenges. I am really looking forward to our meetings." 

For example, she posted Jackson County property records claiming them as proof I do not have a mortgage and that Bill Kenney paid for our house. He was the builder who owned and sold us the house. In truth, we have two mortgages, the 2nd we incurred to cover expenses after our daughter died. 

The following are emails that I have received from Representative Grisamore. If you want to go to Jackson County, MO’s website you can look up anyone’s mortgage. He does not have one. I received each of these emails at different times and I do have a hard copy of them. You can’t have it both ways. First he said that the house was offered to them right after his daughter’s death and a significant portion of the house was gifted through the benevolence of friends, family and a foundation. Then he said that they bought the house before their daughter died and then got a second mortgage following her death. Which is it?

First, you stated, “You don’t have a mortgage on your house. Bill Kenney paid for your house.” I have no idea where you got that assumption. In truth, we have two mortgages on our house. The first from when Bill Kenny sold us the house as a builder/developer and friend and the second we assumed after our daughter died to cover unexpected bills and expenses following her death. Bill did not pay for our house and did not contribute one penny to the purchase contract. He did discount the house from the list price of about $220,000 to just over $200,000 and we do have two mortgages on our home. Please do not perpetuate the false assumption that he paid for our house and we do not have a mortgage. 


I will say to answer your questoin of how we live in a $200,000 house with such a low salary, we were offered the house right after our daughter died and a significant portion of the house was gifted through the benevolence of friends, family and a foundation. We do not make $100,000 a year as you claimed and never have. We bought that house in 2003 when my salary was much higher and it is difficult to keep up with our mortgage. We have considered downsizing, but want to honor the generosity of those who helped us with the home by trying to stay in it and it is a bad sellers market anyway.

You previously told me that your house was offered to you right after your daughter died. Now you are saying that you got the second mortgage after your daughter died. You also said that a significant portion of the house was gifted through the benevolence of friends, family, and a foundation.

You don't have a mortgage. All mortgages are on the Jackson County, Missouri website and can be looked up. This is all that they have for you.


https://records.co.jackson.mo.us/results.asp?id=0FNT1JgSg%3D%3D%21%1FR1JJUZ%2EtioQkCM1%2F%21kZSRVkcCU4u%03FIEpFR&cabinet=opr&fld=Tee&id2=WVJZHguYmVzdWx0cm9yIE5hb%2FziQiLh%21y5hc3A%3DqmsgdG8gUUX%21%21F%033RXNwIExpb

Criteria: Grantee Begins with GRISAMORE JEFFREY J

Search Results - 1 match
Displaying Records 1 to 1
Instrument Number Book-Page # Pgs Date Filed Document Type Grantor
(+) = More Names Grantee
(+) = More Names Legal Description Index Status Image
2003I0010364 2 01/28/2003 WARRANTY DEED BKS CONSTRUCTION LLC GRISAMORE JEFFREY J (+) SUBDIVISION; CITY LEES SUMMIT; SBD MEADOWS AT SUMMIT RIDGE 1ST PLAT I69/97 LE; LT 17-17 Perm

She also implies our children receive free lunches and also tries to imply we are on Medicaid. We are not. We have been privately insured since 2000 after moving back to Missouri with the exception of a nine month window in 2006 after I left a corporate presidency until I was sworn into office.

The Board of Directors is pleased to announce that Children of Promise International has commissioned our president, Jeff Grisamore, to launch a new initiative, hereby known as, the Alliance for Orphans and Widows. As President of Children of Promise since 2000,

Jeff's legacy has been a consistent passion for the care of orphans and widows, a quality that will serve him well in this new endeavor. Jeff will assume his new duties as founder and president of Alliance for Orphans and Widows in April 2006.


Her false attacks against me, Lee's Summit R-7 Schools, DESE and now my House colleagues contain many commonalities. She consistently misunderstands the facts and misrepresents the truth and timelines. That is why I stopped communicating with her in 2008. Anytime, she would post a false claim and I would write to communicate the truth, she would post my e-mail to her and contend I was lying. Therefore, I do not communicate with her any longer. You cannot have rational conversations in a stream of irrational and false attacks and misrepresentations.

From: Jeff Grisamore [mailto:Jeff.Grisamore@house.mo.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:42 PM
To: autism@kc.rr.com

Subject: RE: Meeting To Discuss Aquatic Therapy For Special Needs Students

Sherri,

I had not asked to attend the hayride. Pastor Jim Winings had suggested it. We have worked together much serving constituents and those in need. While I appreciate your offer to attend the hayride, I think it better for your event if I do not attend. 

Given the many false assumptions and untruthful, libelous and slanderous claims you have publicly cirulated about me, my family, non profit work and public service on behalf of individuals with disabilities--even after I have explained to you the truth--I think some attending the hayride would be uncomfortable with my presence. As such, I would not want that to be an unecessary distraction to the success of the event.

While I regularly participate in many disabilities related events and enjoy mutually respective working relationships with many autism and disabilities related advocates in our area and statewide who appreciate my work on behalf of those with disabilities--especially autism--you and I no longer share such common ground, which I reget.

That is unfortunate and I would be more than willing to resume a positive working relationship with you if you would simply acknowledge your misunderstandings about me, my family and work you have published and stop perpetuating such falsehoods via private and public conversations and the internet.

As I told you many times when I repeatedly met with you and Debbie and your group in 2006 and 2007, I would encourage you to be peaceful, proactive and positive in your approach versus being hostile, antagonistic and combative toward the Lee's Summit R-7 School District, DESE and others, including myself. 

Your negative approach has unecessarily alienated you from so many in the autism communities locally, regionally and statewide and has diminished your credibility when you could instead be such a positive force if you would simply change your approach.

Regarding the meeting with the school district regarding special needs programming at the swim and dive center, that meeting and the working group I discussed with R-7 officials regarding special needs programming is pending. They will notify invitees to that meeting. 

I met with the school district concerning special needs programming at the swim and dive center because of the excellent constituent input of Betty Sharpe. I would imagine the school district will be in further communications with her as well as others as special needs programming at the swim and dive center develops.

Jeff

Sent from my Windows Mobile phone.

Missouri Attorney General's Office :: Check a Charity :: Search

Missouri Attorney General's Office :: Check a Charity :: Search

I don't see Jeff Grisamore's charity registered here.  Why doesn't he register his charity so that the public can see where the money is going?  Why does he no longer promote it?  We know that he is getting the bulk of his income from his charity.  Why does he hide it?

Monday, November 19, 2012

Here Is More of What Happens To Our Kids and What He Doesn't Help With


Here is my OCR report.  I have written the truth in red beside their statements.  Please feel free to use in any way that will benefit you or other families.

Sherri

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - REGION VII


NOV 6, 2006




Sherri Tucker
1200 Southeast London Way
Lee's Summit, Missouri  64081

Re: OCR Docket# 07061178

Dear Ms. Tucker:

On May 10, 2006, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received your complaint against the Lee's Summit R-VII School District (District), Lee's Summit, Missouri, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. This is to inform you we have completed our investigation of your complaint and made the following determination.

Specifically, you alleged the District discriminated against your son on the basis of disability by not implementing his Individualized Education Program (IEP).

OCR is responsible for enforcing:


     Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 United States Code (U.S.C) § 794, and its implementing regulation, 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CF.R) Part 104. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal financial assistance.


    OCR is also responsible for enforcing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C § 12131, and its implementing regulation, 28 CF.R Part 35. Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.

As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Department and a public entity, the District is subject to these laws.  Additional information about the laws OCR enforces is available on our website at http:/ /www.ed.gov/ ocr.











8930 WARD PARKWAY, SUITE 2037, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64114

Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

. Page 2- Sherri Tucker- 07061178


In reaching a determination in this complaint, OCR reviewed information provided by you and the District, interviewed you, the Director of Special Services, your son's previous case manager for the 2005-2006 school year, and your son's current case manager for the 2006- 2007 school year. Based on our investigation, the following is a summary of the findings of fact, applicable legal standards, the analysis and the conclusion regarding this complaint.

Findings of Fact


You alleged the District did not correctly implement your son's IEP during the 2005-2006 school year. Your son has Pervasive Development Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Kanner's Syndrome (autism). Your son was 12 years old and was in middle school during the 2005-2006 school year.

You stated you experienced a myriad of problems with middle school staff implementing your son's IEP during the 2005-2006 school year. Your son was evaluated when he entered kindergarten. You stated you did not request a reevaluation during elementary school because you did not experience any problems with the District implementing your son's IEP while he attended elementary school. You stated you requested your son be reevaluated on December 16, 2005, after he entered middle school because the District was not implementing several items on your son's IEP. You stated the District:  (1) was not providing your son with extra schoolbooks; (2) counted your son as tardy on seven
occasions; (3) had placed him in art instead of music; (4) had not scheduled him for physical education (PE) at the end of the school day; (5) was not having your son take tests in small groups; (6) wrote your son up because he did not understand a math assignment; (7) only released him early from class once before January2006; (8) had not been providing you with notes in his plan book; and (9) improperly disciplined your son when his special education teacher "hollered" at him for chewing on his fingers (self-stimulatory behavior), which is something he cannot help.  Your son was reevaluated in March 2006 per your request in December 2005, and a new IEP was developed in April2006.

OCR received documentation from the District regarding this complaint.   The District submitted copies of three IEPs with implementation dates of February 16, 2005, September 30, 2005, and April11, 2006.  The April11, 2006 IEP included a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) dated March 6, 2006. The District also submitted your son's 2005-2006 transcript, discipline record, evaluation data and reports, conference notes and email correspondence.  On August 30, 2006, the District provided OCR with a copy of the Procedural Safeguards Log, conference notes, email correspondence, and a draft IEP dated August 18, 2006 for your son.

Page 3- Sherri Tucker- 07061178


BadefJVU?ld

Your son's February 16, 2005 IEP was developed by staff from his previous elementary school and the middle school prior to his entering middle school. The February 16, 2005 IEP included provisions for the following items applicable to this complaint: extra books - satellite; early release for transition between classes; and check often for understanding/ review.


Your son's IEP dated September 30, 2005 was a result of concerns you expressed in a September 2005 meeting with middle school staff, and provided for the following items applicable to this complaint: provide extra books in classroom; read tests to student in small groups; and check often for understanding/ review.

Documentation indicated you requested a formal evaluation for your son on December 16, 2005, resulting in his first BIP and a new IEP dated  April 11, 2006. You advised OCR you were pleased with the evaluation, IEP meeting and the provisions of the IEP and BIP; however, the IEP was done at the end of the school year and you stated you had reservations about whether or not the District would implement the IEP correctly when the 2006-2007 school year began in August 2006. The April 2006 IEP called for: study guides (prior to each test); preferential seating for teaching instruction; extended time for completing tests as needed; directions given in a variety of ways; provision of extra books in classroom and home unless texts are online; reading of test directions to student in small group; checking often for understanding/ review; visual supports; adult support for organization; use of computer in classroom for lengthy assignments; teacher-provided notes as needed; and encouragement with positive statements rather than negative.

Your son's BIP states he is allowed to pass between classes two minutes early, have a set of textbooks at home, has music instead of art as an elective, always take tests in small group settings, and his teachers will write in his plan book and your son's case manager will update you concerning progress monthly via telephone or email.

Implementatian of IEPs

(1)             Provision of schoolbooks. Regarding the provision of schoolbooks to your son, your son's February 2005 IEP provided for "extra books - satellite," and the September 2005 IEP provided for extra schoolbooks in the classroom. You stated the District did not provide your son with extra schoolbooks in all of his classrooms until November 2005.
During this time, you were informed that some schoolbooks would have to be accessed on the Internet and eventually you were provided with the username and password to access the online schoolbooks. You stated that the special education teacher also accused your son of losing two schoolbooks that were being kept in her classroom; you contacted the Assistant Superintendent and the matter was dropped and nothing else was said. The April 2006 IEP

Page 4 - Sherri Tucker- 07061178


provided for "provision of extra books in classroom and home unless texts are online." Your son's April2006 IEP provided that he be allowed to keep a set of schoolbooks at home; however, you stated his teachers made him return the schoolbooks two weeks before the 2005-2006 school year ended, and consequently, he was unable to do his residual homework   You contacted the District several times regarding this, to no avail, and at that time you feared your son would fail some of his classes.  Your son's previous case manager advised OCR. your son was provided with schoolbooks during the 2005-2006 school year to take home, but could not confirm when this occurred.  She informed OCR. that an extra set of schoolbooks is available in every classroom for all students.  Further, she stated that if a parent does not have access to the Internet at home, the parent should advise the District
and the student will be provided with a textbook   Regarding the matter involving your son not having schoolbooks at home the last two weeks of school, you advised OCR. the District excused the assignments he was unable to complete. OCR.'s review of his record revealed he did not fail or have a significant change in grade in any of his classes.  The books were not made available until I demanded them and one teacher even fought me on that.  He should not have had assignments excused.  He should have been able to do his work.

(2)             Tardiness. Tardiness was not specifically addressed on any of your son's IEPs but you indicated that he did receive tardies during the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year because your son was not allowed to keep schoolbooks in his classrooms (to avoid having to access his locker), his bus being late one day, and his discomfort in leaving classes early or having to take his schoolbook to PE class. You stated one of your son's teachers suggested he leave classes early but your son is not comfortable with breaking school rules. You also stated after you contacted the District five of the seven tardies your son received during the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year were removed from his record.  (The same teacher that gave him tardies early on gave him some after this complaint just to be mean)

OCR.'s reviewed records provided by the District and found that your son's discipline record showed five tardies for the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year.  When asked about this discrepancy, you advised OCR. your son's on-line discipline record showed only two unexcused tardies and your son's case worker also told you the District "erased" all but two of your son's tardies for the first semester.  You submitted a copy of your son's first semester grade report that also showed two tardies for the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year.  Your son was not allowed to attend the "tardy party'' because he had two tardies during the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year.  Your son's records for the second semester of the 2005-2006 school year have no tardies recorded for him during that semester.  On November 6, 2006, you informed OCR. your son has not received any tardies as of that date for the 2006-2007 school year because he has schoolbooks in each of his classrooms.


(3)             Music vs. Art.  This item was not included in any of your son's IEPs, but was placed on his BIP dated March 6, 2006.  You stated you requested music instead of art in February 2005, but the District did not place him in music unti1January2006.   Your son's academic record indicated the District placed your son in music class instead of art as you had requested for the second semester.

Page 5 - Sherri Tucker- 07061178



(4)            PE at the end of the school day.  This item was not included in any of your son's IEPs or in his BIP. You stated you also requested your son be placed in PE class at the end of the school day in February2005, but this change did not happen until January2006.

(5)             Testing in small groups. Your son's September 2005 IEP stated tests would be read to your son in small groups. In a meeting initiated by you in September 2005 with District staff, you inquired as to whether or not your son was being given tests in small groups. You stated a District staff member stated she would have to "drag him out into the hall" in order to do so.  The April 2006 IEP included a similar provision, including the statement that this is not an option and will be done.  Your son's previous case manager advised OCR that testing in small groups may have occurred in the hallway, but stated she began testing your son in small groups prior to September 2005.  This is a complete lie.  It is obvious that he was not being tested in small groups by the comments that were made in the September 2005 meeting and doing it in the hallway is not acceptable.  All of the teachers in the meeting stated that they were not giving him tests in small groups.


(6)             Written up for not understanding math. You informed OCR your son was written up because he did not understand a math assignment. You stated your son became confused about the assignment and "shut down." The math teacher wrote him up and he received a “commitment letter," which made him extremely upset. OCR's review of your son's discipline record indicated there was no entry for this action.  Your son's February 2005, September 2005 and April2006 IEPs, stated that your son's teachers were to check with him often for understanding  and to review his work   Your son's previous case manager advised OCR that every teacher was given a packet of information regarding your son, including new teachers on a quarterly basis.  He was also introduced to all his new teachers prior to the beginning of the classes.  The teacher called me at home because Jake was crying.  Jake never cries.  I asked her what was going on.  He had missed school and was supposed to make up his work.  He was doing so when she started writing the answers on the board.  He stopped because he felt he would be cheating if he continued.  She instructed him to start again.  The same thing happened again.  This happened three times.  He shut down completely.  She made him write a commitment letter.  When he started crying she called me.  Jake will not lie or break rules so he felt that having to write the commitment letter was a form of punishment and he does not like to get in trouble.  I explained all of this to her.  She told me that she felt that we needed to have expectations for Jake.  I told her that I agreed, but her expectations were not right.  I told her that I had expectations before he was born.  I had to change mine and she needed to change hers.  I asked her if he was dancing on his desk, shouting out loud, or doing anything else that was disrupting her classroom.  She stated that he was not.  I told her that we would do the homework at home and that there was no reason for her behavior.  I told her that I would cry to if I had to go to that school every day.  Jake has always been in regular education classrooms with no paras or support.  They removed this from his record prior to giving his records to the OCR.

(7)             Early Transition.   Your son's February2005 IEP included a provision allowing your son to leave classes early so he could get to his next class but the September 2005 IEP did not include a similar provision.  The March 2006 BIP included a provision allowing him to pass between classes two minutes early.  The District's opinion was that having your son leave class early would assist him in transitioning to classes because he would have more time to stop at his locker and would avoid the noise and confusion in the hallways in between classes.  However, as previously stated in item 2, your son was not comfortable with breaking school rules and did not leave class early except on a few occasions.  This is not true.  They did not allow him to and I explained it to him and he was fine with it.  The noise and chaos in the halls was so distracting for him that it overwhelmed him.

(8)             Plan book notes.  Providing you with notes in your son's plan book was not a requirement in your son's IEP until April2006.   You stated your son's core class teachers had done this, but not on a consistent basis.  The previous case manager informed OCR it was your son's responsibility to have his teachers writes in his plan book   All students have plan books; the District uses them as educational tools and they are the responsibility of the student.  I have several of his plan book pages and none of them have been written in before or after April 2006.

Page 6- Sherri Tucker- 07061178


(9)             Self-stimulatory behavior.  Your son's BIP, which is the first one he has ever had, addresses what actions to take when your son exhibits self-stimulatory behavior, such as chewing on his fingers. These actions include a five-minute break in the Recovery Room and completing a "Calm Down" sheet. In an interview with your son's previous case manager, she advised OCR the District tried using chewing gum but your son would swallow it. The District also allowed him to chew on a wristband. The previous case manager stated the whole IEP team was involved in creating the BIP and all of your son's teachers were aware of it and were provided a copy of his BIP.  The district’s assistant superintendent gave my son the wrist band to chew on.  I told her that it would not be a good idea because he would have his wrist at his mouth all of the time.  They gave him one anyway and the first day that he used it he got in trouble for it.  The district never gave him chewing gum because I told them that he would just swallow it.  The woman from OCR said that she felt as though Jake’s case manager was hiding something or not being completely honest.

You advised OCR you met with the District on August 18, 2006, prior to the start 2006-2007 school year on August 23, 2006. You advised OCR on August 23, 2006, that you met with District staff on August 18th, and the meeting seemed to go well. You stated for the first time, all of your son's teachers were present, as well as other pertinent District staff.

You stated your son is in music class, and has PE class at the end of the school day. You stated you advised the District to leave the provision for early transition to classes in your son's IEP, just in case something occurs to justify his doing so. On August 30, 2006, the District submitted a draft copy of your son's August 2006 IEP. OCR's review of the draft August 2006 IEP confirmed that all of your concerns were addressed and/or put in writing.


On September 11, 2006, you advised OCR you were meeting with the District on September 12th. On September 13, 2006, OCR contacted you. You stated you were pleased with the IEP meeting and your son's August 2006 IEP. On September 19, 2006, OCR received a copy of your son's finalized August 2006 IEP.

Legal Standard

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R § 104.33(a) and (b) requires school districts to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities.  An appropriate education is defined as regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of the student with disabilities.

Implementation of an IEP is one means of meeting this standard.  The regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R § 35.130 places requirements on school districts comparable to Section 504 at 34 C.F.R § 104.33.


The following five inquiries have to be answered in the investigation of whether a free appropriate public education is being provided: (1) whether the student is identified as disabled; (2) what the student's identified disability is; (3) what the student is to receive according to his IEP/ Accommodation Plan; (4) what the District actually provided; and (5)  if the District failed to fully implement the student's IEPIAccommodation Plan, whether the failure was significant enough to have limited the student's educational opportunity. If the failure to implement resulted in limited educational opportunity, there was a failure to provide a free appropriate public education.

Page 7- Sherri Tucker- 07061178



Analysis


Your son is disabled for purposes of Title II and Section 504.  You advised OCR your son had Pervasive  Development  Disorder- Not  Otherwise Specified  (PDD-NOS)  and Kanner's Syndrome (autism), when you filed your complaint with OCR   On August 23, 2006, you advised OCR your son's diagnosis had been changed by his psychologist to Asberger's Syndrome (autism), inattentive attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder, and dysgraphia (inability of the brain to communicate to the hand to write).  OCR has established the first and second inquiries of the analysis.


You alleged the District was not implementing your son's IEP.  You specifically identified the following nine provisions:   (1) not providing extra books in the classroom; (2) counted him tardy on several occasions; (3) placed him in art instead of music; (4) did not schedule him for physical education at the end of the day; (5) was not having him take tests in small groups; (6) wrote him up when he did not understand a math problem; (7) did not release him from class early to transition; (8) did not provide notes in his plan book; and (9) the special education teacher "hollered" at him for chewing on his fingers (self-stimulatory behavior).  OCR has established the third inquiry of the analysis.


You attended IEP meetings for your son in February 2005, September 2005, March 2006 and August 2006. The February2005 IEP addressed extra schoolbooks, earlytransition and checking often for understanding.  You stated your son did not receive schoolbooks in all  his classes until November 2005 for the 2005-2006 school year and that your son has been provided with all of his schoolbooks for home and in his classrooms for the 2006-2007 school year. Your son received tardies, partly as a result of not having schoolbooks in his classrooms, but you told OCR and provided documentation showing that the District dismissed five of the seven tardies your son received after you contacted them. You believe having the schoolbooks in your son's classrooms should prevent him from receiving tardies this school year, unless something unexpected should occur, which is why you asked the District to leave in the earlytransition provision in your son's IEP. You confirmed your son has not received any tardies since the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year.


You stated you requested your son be placed in music and his PE be scheduled at the end of the day in February 2005 but the District did not implement these changes until January 2006.  This school year your son is taking music and his PE class is scheduled at the end of the school day for the entire year. A provision regarding your son being tested in small groups was placed in your son's September 2005 IEP; however, the District stated it began testing your son in small groups prior to September 2005. Your son's current case manager advised OCR that when your son takes tests this school year, he will leave the classroom with a small group of students and take his tests in the Student Administration Conference

Page 8- Sherri Tucker- 07061178


Room, the Library or the Media Center.  You alleged your son was written up for not understanding a math assignment; however, there is no evidence of this on his discipline record.

Your son's current case manager advised OCR when the District held the IEP meeting on August 18, 2006, your son's teachers attended and the provisions of his IEP were discussed. You advised OCR that as long as your son's schoolbooks are provided in the classroom the early transition provision that appeared in his earlier IEPs is not necessary. The planning book provisions in your son's April2006 are now being addressed by having your son write his daily notes on a revised form specifically created for him.  His notes are then checked by
his teachers and rewritten if necessary so you can read them.  Self-stimulatory behavior is being addressed and was specifically covered in the BIP.  Your son's current case manager is aware of the BIP, your son's exhibitions of behaviors that need to be addressed, and how to accomplish the provisions of his BIP.  These facts address the fourth inquiry of the analysis.

You advised OCR you met with the District staff on August  18,2006, prior to the 2006-07 school year and that meeting seemed to go well.  You stated for the first time, all of your son's teachers were present, as well as other pertinent District staff.  You stated your son is in music class, and has PE class at the end of the day for the entire school year.  You stated you advised the District to leave the provision for early transition to classes in your son's IEP, just in case something occurs to justify his doing so.  On August 30, 2006, the District submitted a draft copy of your son's August 2006 IEP.  On September  19,2006, OCR received a copy of your son's finalized August 2006 IEP and confirmed that all of your concerns have been addressed.  Additionally, you are pleased with the August 2006 IEP and your son's current case manager is aware of the provisions of his IEP and his special education needs.

OCR has determined that while the District may have failed to implement some provisions of your son's IEP during the 2005-2006 school year, the District took actions to correct the deficiencies when you brought them to the District's attention. OCR has reviewed the provisions of your son's IEP that the District had not implemented and the District's response when you advised District staff of the failure to implement those provisions and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the failure to implement some provisions of your son's IEP materially limited your son's educational opportunity. Additionally, subsequent actions by the District, which you confirmed, show that the District developed a new IEP in September 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year resolving the issues of the complaint.

You advised OCR on September 13, 2006, you requested adaptive PE for your son. On September 19, 2006, you informed OCR the District has given you the option of deleting PE from your son's classes rather than providing adaptive PE to him. The provision of adaptive PE to your son is an educational decision. OCR does not, except in extraordinary

Page 9- Sherri Tucker- 07061178


circumstances, review the results of individual placement and educational decisions made by a recipient as long as the process requirements of the Section 504 regulation are met. The Section 504 process requirements include an evaluation, a placement decision by a group of individuals who are knowledgeable about the evaluation and placement options and who consider information from a variety of sources, and procedural safeguards. The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R § 104.36 requires a recipient to provide a system of procedural safeguards that includes notice, an opportunity for the parents or guardian to examine relevant records, an impartial hearing with opportunity for participation by the person's parents or guardian and representation by counsel, and a review procedure. This applies to actions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of persons who, because of disability, need or are believed to need special instruction or related services. The documentation received by OCR indicated the District advised you of its procedural safeguards. You maywish to utilize the District's due process procedures regarding your request for adaptive PE for your son.

Conclusion


Based on the above, OCR determined the evidence did not establish that the District's failure to provide some of the special education and related services identified in your son's IEPs during the 2005-2006 school year materially limited your son's educational opportunities. Further, you stated all of your concerns have been addressed in an August 2006 IEP for the 2006-2007 school year and all of your son's teachers participated in the August 2006 IEP meeting. Also, your son's current case manager is aware of the provisions of his IEP and his special education needs. Therefore, OCR has determined the allegation of this complaint has been resolved.

OCR has determined there is an insufficient factual basis to support a conclusion that the District's failure to fully implement your son's IEP materially limited his educational opportunities in violation of Section 504. OCR has also determined that there are no current allegations appropriate for complaint resolution and that there are no allegations
applicable to a class of students. Therefore, we are closing your complaint effective the date of this letter.


The determinations contained in this letter are not intended and should not be construed to cover any other issues regarding compliance with the regulations implementing Section 504 and Title II that may exist but are not specifically discussed herein.

OCR is committed to a high quality resolution of every case. If you have any questions or concerns about OCR's case determination, you maycontactJulie Murphy, Equal OpportunitySpecialist, at (816) 268-0577 (voice), (877) 521-2172 (telecommunications device for the deaf), or by email at julie.murph}@ed.gov If you still have concerns, you may send a request for reconsideration to the Office Director within 60 days of the date of this

Page 10 - Sherri Tucker- 07061178

letter.  Contacting Ms. Murphy neither stops the running of the 60-daytimeline for filing a request for reconsideration, nor is it a prerequisite to filing a request for reconsideration with the Office Director.  If you choose to request reconsideration, please be as specific as possible, focusing on factual or legal concerns that could change the disposition of the case.


In any future correspondence with OCR, please refer to the number referenced above. This will enable OCR staff to immediately route your correspondence to the individual assigned to your complaint. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Julie Murphy, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at the above telephone numbers or email address.


Sincerely,

Jody A VanWey
Supervisory Equal Opportunity Specialist

Page 10 - Sherri Tucker - 07061178

letter.  Contacting Ms. Mutphy neither stops the running of the 60-daytimeline for filing a request for reconsideration, nor is it a prerequisite to filing a request for reconsideration with the Office Director.  If you choose to request reconsideration, please be as specific as possible, focusing on factual or legal concerns that could change the disposition of the case.


In any future correspondence with OCR, please refer to the number referenced above. This will enable OCR staff to immediately route your correspondence to the individual assigned to your complaint. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Julie Murphy, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at the above telephone numbers or email address.


Sincerely,





Jody A VanWey                            '
Supervisory Equal Opportunity Specialist



Date: 03/07/2006       


PROVISIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN SPRING, 2005
FOR THE EDUCATION OF JACOB EDWARD TUCKER

1. A copy of every textbook in the classroom and at home.
2. Leave each class a minute early so that Jake would avoid the chaos in the hallways.
3. PE at the end of the day so that Jake would not have to take showers.
4. Music because Jake has poor motor skills and art might be a challenge.
5. Typing long essays. Jake does not put all of his thoughts on paper when he has to write in longhand.
6. Going to lunch early so that he doesn't have to wait in line and can finish his meal.

There was discussion on other things, but I can't recall them. These seem to be the most important. I have enclosed an article that reinforces the importance of these things.

Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

Parents concerns are as follows:

Turning in assignments continues to be a concern for Jacob. He would benefit from adult support for make-up work and tests and turning in assignments.
Jacob's handwriting continues to be an issue He would benefit from typing his assignments or having a scribe. He has been diagnosed with Dysgraphia and would benefit from assistive technology. He needs to be able to type in his classroom so that he can remain in his least restrictive environment and he needs to be able to bring home his work. At present he has to leave the classroom to type and he is not able to complete his work at home because it is saved on a computer at school. He needs to be able to type almost all of his work.

Jacob becomes overwhelmed easily. Too much stimuli causes him to become overwhelmed.  This can cause him to shutdown or become stressed. He has started chewing and has difficulty paying attention when he becomes stressed. Jacob would benefit from having something to chew on. He also should continue going to the recovery room when he becomes overwhelmed. He would benefit from modifications to school rules that may discriminate against him. He would benefit from behaviors being ignored that are not seriously disruptive and an individualized behavior intervention plan that is positive and consistent with his ability and skills. He has been diagnosed with anxiety.

Jacob has difficulty in the area of organization, using time wisely in class and completion of work. He would benefit from adult support for organization in all classes.  Jacob does not communicate the events of his day when he gets home. He would benefit from having all of his teachers write in his planbook every day. Psychologist has stated that Jake does not have the ability to do this for himself and that his adult sup-port should be performing secretarial duties for him. He has been diagnosed with Inattentive ADHD.

Jacob gets easily confused as to what he is supposed to be doing. He would benefit from both oral and printed directions, being given directions in small steps and in as few words as possible, numbering and sequencing the steps in a task, visual aids, having progress checked and feedback given in the first few minutes of each assignment, being provided study guides and study questions that directly relate to tests, directions given in a variety of ways.

Jacob was given tests in small groups and studied for tests in speech when he was in elementary school. He also was in the learning center for math and any other areas that he was not doing well in. He would benefit from taking all tests in small groups (in all of his classes), being permitted as much time as needed to finish tests, and having the tests read to him. Jacob's classroom performance indicates that he may benefit from small group instruction and modifications within the math, science, and language arts curriculum.

Jacob's disability affects participation in class, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, turning in work on time, completing work on time, organization, asking for make-up work, taking notes, writing essays, taking tests, and understanding emotions of peers and teachers.

It also affects how he is perceived by his peers and teachers. He may be perceived as lazy or refusing to work and that is not the case. .He would benefit from his teachers being thoroughly
trained in his disability by a source outside of the school district. Mother has offered many training materials to the district and will continue to do so.

Jake's Vineland Behavior Scales indicate that he is at an age equivalent of a three year old in some areas. He would benefit from a plan that would address those deficits. His future is dependent on him being able to be independent and that needs to be addressed in his IEP.

Narrative Report
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) measures the personal and social skills of individuals from birth through adulthood. Because adaptive behavior refers to an individual's typical performance of the day-to-day activities required for personal and social sufficiency, these scales assess what a person actually does, rather than what he or she is able to do. The Vineland-II assesses adaptive behavior in four domains: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. It also provides a composite score that summarizes the individual's performance across all four domains.

JAKE TUCKER was age 12:9 on the interview date of March 1,2006. The respondent was his Mother, Sherri Tucker. Sherri was administered the Vineland-II Parent / Caregiver Rating Form by EMILY MILLER.

JAKE was previously classified with the following diagnosis: Autism.

JAKE's Adaptive Behavior Composite standard score of 74 summarizes his overall level of adaptive functioning. The 90 percent confidence level shows that JAKE's true Adaptive Behavior Composite is likely to be within the range of 69 to 79 (confidence interval of +/-5). JAKE's Adaptive Behavior Composite classifies his general adaptive functioning as moderately low; he scores higher than only 4% of similarly aged individuals in the Vineland-II norm sample.