Judge calls meeting on special education
Laura Loh, Baltimoresun.com, April 2, 2005

A federal judge has called an emergency meeting to discuss the Baltimore school system's failure to provide continuous services to hundreds of special-education students.

U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis ruled Thursday that city school officials must find a way to prevent interruptions in special-education services - such as extra lessons or therapy - some of them caused by unfilled teaching positions this school year.

Garbis criticized the administration for paying "lip service" to staffing problems. Officials have been unable to fill about 150 vacancies this school year, many in special education.

Garbis oversees a 21-year-old special education court case filed by advocates for disabled students against the city. The Maryland Department of Education later joined the case as a defendant.

City and state school officials declined to comment on the ruling.

Although the administration recently demoted several employees who failed to keep track of interruptions in service to disabled students, Garbis wrote, the problems might have grown too large for the school system to handle.

The judge also chided schools chief Bonnie S. Copeland for not showing "any significant degree of concern" about her responsibility in the "crisis," according to the ruling.

Garbis suggested that the Maryland State Department of Education might need to assume "an active and systematic role" to resolve the service interruptions.

He scheduled an emergency conference for next month "to try to salvage" the rest of the school year for Baltimore's special-education students.

Copyright © 2005, The Baltimore Sun

Money for Baltimore's students

Appeals court hears city schools funding debate
If Kaplan's ruling stands, state could take financial hit
By Laura Loh, Baltimore Sun Staff, March 8, 2005

LINK

Lawyers for the state, Baltimore schools and education advocates converged on Maryland's highest court yesterday to present arguments in a case that could deal a major financial blow to the state -- if a Baltimore judge's ruling concerning state dollars for city schools is allowed to stand.

At issue was what actions Circuit Court Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan ordered the state to take in the 74-page ruling he issued in August, in which he said Baltimore students are still being denied an adequate education and that the state had "unlawfully underfunded" city schools by $400 million to $800 million since 2000.

Lawyers for the state argued before the Court of Appeals in Annapolis that Kaplan exceeded his authority by specifying the range of money owed to the schools; ordering that state and city officials increase funding by at least $30 million this year; and recommending that state lawmakers speed up state education payments to the city.

But lawyers for education advocates contended that Kaplan's ruling gave the state the flexibility to decide how to comply with his finding that the city schools were underfunded. They also argued that the state should not be permitted to appeal the ruling because it was an "interim" decision that did not contain final orders for the state, and that only a "final" order can be challenged.

The judges' decision on the appeal could hinge on whether they think Kaplan's ruling directed the state to take specific actions, lawyers on both sides said. Several judges quizzed the attorneys on what they thought Kaplan was asking for.

"I'm not sure what that means," Judge Alan M. Wilner said of the range in dollar amounts in Kaplan's ruling. "How is this the final judgment? What is it the state has been asked to do?"

Yesterday's hourlong hearing was scheduled to give lawyers on both sides of Bradford v. Maryland an opportunity to argue the finer legal points of the ruling, which was prompted by budget cuts the school system made in the midst of a financial crisis last school year. Kaplan oversees the decade-old school-funding lawsuit filed on behalf of city students and joined by the city and Baltimore school board.

The state's attorney contended that Kaplan should have limited himself to deciding whether education in city schools was inadequate -- as defined in the state constitution -- and that he should have refrained from ordering the state to take certain steps to address the situation.

"The court cannot issue an order binding anyone to pay money to the city schools," state Assistant Attorney General Liz Kameen told the panel of seven judges. "That would be a violation of the separation of powers."

Lawyers for the Bradford plaintiffs argued that Kaplan's ruling left many unanswered questions and should not be challenged now. They also said the judge made specific suggestions about funding only after determining that the state had failed to comply with a similar order he issued in 2000.

The state argues it complied with that directive to provide $2,000 to $2,600 in extra state dollars per city student. School officials and education advocates dispute the state's calculations.

In addition to arguing that Kaplan's order was "extraordinary" and outside his authority, Kameen also said the judge ignored "substantial evidence" that the school system was managing its money irresponsibly.

"Because of that culture of complacency, there's money leaking out of Baltimore City schools. Some would say 'hemorrhaging out,' " Kameen said, adding that more state money is not the solution.

Warren Weaver, a lawyer for the school board, countered with a different portrayal -- one of a system that has worked hard to become fiscally accountable. He urged the judges to remember that the schools' financial problems occurred while they were being underfunded.

State schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said after the hearing that management problems "persist today," and gave fresh examples of what she considered mistakes by the current city school administration, including $800,000 in federal grants recently forfeited by the system.

Jeffery N. Grotsky, the system's chief of staff, said the administration abandoned the grants for career and technology programs because it would have had to spend its own money first and seek reimbursement. Last school year, the system froze such spending amid the financial crisis.

Copyright © 2005, The Baltimore Sun

Hearing today may shed light on how our schools derailed

High Court to Hear Md. Special-Ed Case
Schools Must Prove Adherence to Disabilities Law, Couple's Suit Asserts
By Tim Craig and Miranda S. Spivack, Washington Post, February 23, 2005

LINK

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear the case of a Montgomery County couple who contend that school officials, if challenged, must prove they are meeting their legal obligations to special education students.

The justices will try to decide whether lower courts should place the burden of proof on schools or the plaintiff -- presumably the parents -- when a party sues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The law requires that public schools grant every disabled child a "free appropriate special education" tailored to the child's specific needs.

The case, which has taken a tortuous, seven-year path through the educational and legal systems, could have a major impact on millions of parents and their children with special needs. It involves Brian Schaffer, who in 1997 was a seventh-grader with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and was attending a private school that offered no special education programs.

When Jocelyn Schaffer, Brian's mother, sought to enroll him at Herbert Hoover Middle School, the county offered a specially designed curriculum for Brian called an Individual Education Program. It called for 15.3 hours of special education and 45 minutes of speech therapy each week. After the parents expressed concern about that school's fairly large classes, according to court filings, the system offered the same individualized program at Robert Frost Middle School, where classes were smaller.

The parents rejected both offers as inadequate and instead enrolled Brian in the McLean School of Maryland, a private school in Potomac. They subsequently requested a due process hearing, available under the disabilities act, during which they sought reimbursement for school tuition.

An administrative law judge ruled that the Schaffers had to prove that the school system's plan for their son was lacking. The parents then filed suit in U.S. District Court, which ruled that the burden of proof rested with the schools. The case was returned to the administrative law judge, who ordered the school system to reimburse the parents for part of their son's private school tuition.

The Montgomery County school system appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which ruled that the burden rests with whatever party is filing the suit, effectively ruling against the Schaffers, who appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is being closely watched by school systems and special education advocates. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act offers no clear standard for how such cases should be resolved. Various appellate courts have come down on different sides of the question.

"We regard this as an important civil rights case," said William H. Hurd, the Schaffers's attorney. "We believe the implications are very large."

Jerry D. Weast, superintendent of Montgomery County schools, said the case "demonstrates the overwhelming litigious nature that has evolved under special education in which school systems have been presumed at fault until proven otherwise."

Weast said most school districts settle similar cases to avoid litigation. Montgomery County, which has about 15,000 students enrolled in Individual Education Programs, is contesting the issue, he said, because "educational services should be decided in an appropriate way based on the educational needs of the student, not the whim of a lawyer."

Last year, 26 Montgomery cases were sent to an administrative law judge for mediation, according to the State Department of Education.

The National School Boards Association, which represents the nation's 15,000 school systems, backs Montgomery's' position that the burden should not rest with the schools if a parent brings a suit.

"The bottom line is that there are plenty of protections in the law, and you should follow the general rule that the challenging party has the burden of proof," said Naomi Gittins a staff attorney for the association.

Attorneys for the Schaffer family argue that it is the school system's responsibility to prove that it is adhering to federal law.

"This is a case where the school district has an affirmative obligation to develop a plan for the child," Hurd said. "It ought to be willing to step up to the plate and explain why it believes it has met its obligation."

As the case was wending its way to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Clinton administration filed a brief supporting the Schaffers. Hurd said he was hopeful that the Bush administration would maintain that position at the high court. Justice Department officials did not return phone calls yesterday seeking comment.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

US Supreme Court Will Look at Maryland Special Education Case and Burden of Proof

Montgomery County, Maryland: 95% of Elementary Schools Achieve State Standards - Except schools With Special Ed Kids

Baltimore Maryland is Allegedly Not Providing Adequate Education Programs, and the Ed Dept. is in Federal Court

US District Judge Gives Maryland More Oversight Over Special Education Programs in Baltimore Schools

Johns Hopkins Receives $768,688 to Train New Special Education Educators in Maryland