Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Hermosa Beach: Investigators conclude school retaliated against student’s dad

by Robb Fulcher
Published April 24, 2008

Source: Easy Reader News

Federal investigators have determined that a Hermosa Valley School employee made allegations to child welfare authorities that a parent kept an unclean home and verbally abused school staff in retaliation for the parent’s advocacy in seeking special education classes for his son. The child welfare authorities found the allegations of abuse or neglect “inconclusive or unfounded.”

Investigators for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also found that the school retaliated against the parent by holding his seventh-grade son in a supervised, one-day “in-school suspension” without notifying the parent as required by state law.

The Hermosa Beach City School District signed a resolution agreement with the Office for Civil Rights calling for the district to revise its nondiscrimination and complaint policies, reemphasize its commitment to prohibit retaliation by employees, and provide nondiscrimination and non-retaliation training to the staff and administration of Valley School.

The school district “has not admitted any violation of law and has contested a number of [the investigators’] conclusions,” according to a March 4 report from the leader of the investigating team.

Hermosa Beach City School Superintendent Sharon McClain said state confidentiality laws prohibit her from publicly commenting on matters involving students and parents, and a school district attorney advised her she could not comment in detail on the subject of this story.

“All District personnel did what they thought was appropriate and right under the circumstances. We have fully cooperated with the OCR [Office for Civil Rights] in regards to both the investigation and the resolution agreement pertaining to the investigation,” she said in a prepared statement.

“We understand that OCR has closed their file in this matter. It would be inappropriate for me to go into any additional detail about the investigation as it would compromise student and teacher confidentiality,” she said.

The parent provided a copy of the investigators’ letter but declined comment on a number of matters including which school employees made accusations against him.

Separate child welfare investigators determined the allegations of verbal and physical abuse of the student by the parent were also “inconclusive or unfounded.”

The employee who made the verbal abuse allegation later made the accusations about an unclean home and verbal abuse of school staff – the ones determined to be retaliatory – in a follow-up interview with child welfare authorities, the letter stated.

Other accusations

The parent’s advocacy for his son dates back at least to 2006.

By the spring of 2005 his son “was not meeting the basic minimum requirements for his grade level, particularly in math,” the investigators’ letter stated. He was evaluated by a school psychologist in 2006, when he was a seventh grade student, and a team of school employees determined that he was “not eligible for special education services.”

The parient disagreed. At a Feb. 14 meeting he “openly questioned the credentials” of a school resource specialist and “protested the school’s prior determinations to deny him the ability to speak with” a special education teacher or teaching assistant, the letter stated.

“During the meeting the assistant principal [Sylvia Gluck, who is now the principal] became upset with [the parent], walked out of the meeting and said to him, ‘I do not want to say something I’ll regret later,” according to the letter.

(Phone calls to Gluck were not returned Tuesday or early Wednesday, and McClain said confidentiality laws would prevent Gluck from commenting.)

At that meeting, the school team continued to maintain that the student was not eligible for special education but agreed to let him enroll in a special education math class, the letter stated.

The parent continued to disagree with the school’s assessment of his son and hired a psychologist who evaluated the student and “reached a conclusion contrary” to that of the school.

The parent retained an attorney and another meeting was scheduled with the school team.

Then on April 26 or April 27, 2006, a school employee met with the assistant principal to “discuss the possibility of making a report concerning the parent” to the state Department of Child and Family Services, the letter stated.

On April 28, 2006, the employee made a report to the department “in which it was alleged that the parent was verbally abusive to the student,” the letter stated.

Child and Family Services launched an investigation, including on-campus interviews of school district staff. During the interviews, the school employee “made further allegations that the parent “kept an unclean home” and “was verbally abusive with staff.”

In a June 8, 2006 letter, the Department of Child and Family Services told the parent that its investigation was closed, and “the allegation of child abuse or neglect was either inconclusive or unfounded.”

On May 5, 2006 a separate school employee, “based on observations of the student, made a report to the Department of Child and Family Services in which it was alleged that the student was the victim of physical abuse,” the report stated. Before making the report, the employee consulted with the assistant principal and principal of the school, according to the report.

That night at 10:15 a Department of Child and Family Services social worker and a uniformed police officer knocked on the family’s door and examined the student and his older brother “for signs of physical abuse. No signs of physical abuse were found and the Department of Child and Family Services determined it was unnecessary to interview [the school employee who reported the suspicion of abuse],” the letter stated.

In a June 30, 2006 letter the Department of Child and Family Services told the parent that the second case was closed, and again, “the allegation of child abuse or neglect was either inconclusive or unfounded.”

On May 15, 2006 an attorney for the parent faxed school district Superintendent Sharon McClain claiming that the parent was being harassed and retaliated against, and a complaint would be filed with the Office for Civil Rights.

“The district did not investigate the allegations stated in the May 15 fax or respond in any way,” the federal investigators found. “The superintendent explained that she believed that the letter was not intended to be addressed to her in an ‘official’ capacity but rather in a ‘personal’ capacity. She believed that the issues stated therein were being addressed through due process hearings…”

On May 16, 2006 a school resource specialist sent the student to the administration office for allegedly punching another student, and the assistant principal assigned the student to one day of “Saturday school.” The school sent a “Saturday school form” home with the student, but failed to call the parent to tell him of the Saturday school requirement, and the parent did not send his son to Saturday school, the letter stated. Then the assistant principal gave the student a one-day, supervised “in-school suspension” for failing to attend Saturday school, the letter stated.

The Office for Civil Rights letter states that the California Education Code requires a school employee to contact a parent or guardian “at the time of the suspension.” The Office for Civil Rights concluded that the assistant principal traded voice mail messages with the parent, but did not reach him to tell of the in-school suspension.

“The district’s failure to take its usual steps is particularly problematic given the parent’s belief, at the time, that the district subjected him and the student to retaliation,” stated the report. ER

More information: