Doe V. Withers Case Study

Case 1:

Name of Case: Doe v. Withers

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.

The Stakeholders:
1. John and Jane Doe (parents) filed a complaint on behalf of their son.
2. Michael Withers (Grafton High School

teacher), Greg Cartwright (Grafton High School principal), Wendell Teets (Taylor County Schools superintendent), and the Taylor County Board of Education responded to the complaint.

The Court Ruling:
Because documentation proved that they directed Withers to follow the IEP, the principal, superintendent, special education teacher, and special education director were dismissed from the case. Withers was found to have disobeyed direct orders to follow the IEP, and was solely responsible for the improper treatment and mental hardship suffered by D.D. The jury ruled in favor of the parents, and they were awarded compensatory and punitive damages against Withers.

The Case’s Impact:
This is a landmark case in special education law since it is the first special education jury trial ever and the first special education monetary damages trial. The case also legitimized IDEA and IEPs in general. It made teachers accountable to follow IEPs and sent a message that there would be severe consequences for failure to comply. It also opened the gates, so to speak, for other special education damage cases. Teachers should now be more aware of their responsibility to serve each student’s needs.

Case 2:

Name of Case: Honig v. Doe

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
Two California students with disabilities, “Doe” and “Smith”, were both suspended for five days from their respective schools.

High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s

suit.
A federal trial court first granted Doe’s request for a preliminary injunction, and then entered a permanent injunction, barring school officials from suspending students with disabilities from school for more than five days or making any other changes of educational placement, pending completion of proceedings. The court also ordered the state to provide services to students if the local agency failed to do so. Bill Honig, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, sought review by the Supreme Court claiming the Ninth Circuit Court failed to consider the “dangerous exception” to the “stay-put” provision, and that ordering states to provide direct services, if local agencies could not, imposed an oppressive burden on the state.

The Stakeholders:
1. Bill Honig (California Superintendent of Public Instruction) filed the complaint.
2. John Doe and Jack Smith (students) responded to the complaint

The Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court stated the case for “Doe” was moot because he was no longer eligible under IDEA at the age of 21. The court also ruled that the schools, as well as local and state officials, do not have the authority to unilaterally exclude students with disabilities from the classroom, regardless of the degree of danger presented to the student. So a student with disabilities must “stay-put” during a case. However, it did affirm that suspensions could last up to ten days. Third, the court affirmed that state officials must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local boards fail to do so.

The Case’s Impact:
This was the first case to reach the Supreme Court regarding the discipline of students with disabilities. Now, lower courts are more weary in granting preliminary injunctions. IDEA’s approach to offenses committed by special education students contrasts sharply with the public schools’ current climate of zero tolerance of rule infractions. This controversy should encourage school officials to keep close track of further court developments. In the meantime, schools need to know that they can suspend students with disabilities for up to ten days, without review of the IEP or making placement changes, but on the eleventh day the student must return to their previous placement. That is unless the IEP team, which includes the parents, agrees upon a change in placement. If the school is going to suspend a student with disabilities for more than ten days, the IEP team must meet to review and/or change the goals and to ensure appropriate educational services are provided outside of school so that the student can continue to make academic progress.

Case 3:

Name of Case: Cedar Rapids v. Garret F.

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
Student Garret F., was paralyzed from the neck down and thus used a wheelchair, was dependent upon a ventilator, and required assistance in attending to his physical needs during the school day. Cedar Rapids Community School District declined to provide the one-on-one care and accept the financial responsibility for Garret’s needed services. The school district filed a claim stating the services Garret required were medical services and not “related services” under the IDEA umbrella, as the family believed them to be. The school district also raised the issue of the cost of such care, stating it was an undue burden.

The Stakeholders:
1. The petitioner was Cedar Rapids Community School District.
2. Garret F. (student) was the respondent.

The Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and ruled that IDEA required public schools to fund one-on-one nursing care that could be provided by a nurse or qualified layperson, despite the concerns of the related costs. Thus, this case was not subject to the medical services exclusion. The benefits of Garret being able to remain in school significantly outweighed the costs.

The Case’s Impact:
This was considered to be a great victory for disability advocates and families with disabled children. In fact, as a result of this case, Amendments were made to 1999 Education Flexibility Partnership Act to increase IDEA funding in order to guarantee that all students are indeed integrated into the public schools. For school districts, they need to ensure that they are funding and providing related services, such as one-on-one nursing services, to students who need them, as long as the services do not require a licensed physician. This will cost the school districts extra thousands or even millions of dollars. If the school districts actually received the 40% of necessary funds that Congress promised, this would not be as much of a burden. But current calculations average that school districts only receive about 12% of these funds.

Case 4:

Name of Case: Pamela Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
Adaptive PE teacher, Pamela Settlegoode, spent eighteen months trying to advocate for
her special education students. She repeatedly sent written letters to her supervisors, the special education director, and the superintendent about the inequities in access and services for her disabled students as compared to the nondisabled students. She pointed out that the school district failed to provide the required services stated in the students’ IEPs and even altered the IEPs. She knew these actions were violations of the law. They retaliated by ordering her to stop writing letters, they took away her responsibilities and cancelled her classes, they ordered her not to volunteer during her lunch hour, and they excluded her from the IEP meetings for her students. In 2000, the Portland Public Schools (PPS) both fired Settlegoode and blackballed her from being hired elsewhere.
So Settlegoode filed suit against PPS on alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, violation of the Oregon Whistle Blowers Act, Defamation of Character, and a violation of the Equal Pay Act (the latter two claims were later dropped for tactile reasons). PPS’s case was that Settlegoode was fired due to writing poorly drafted IEPs and poor performance reviews.

The Stakeholders:
1. The petitioner was Pamella Settlegoode (teacher).
2. Portland Public Schools, Multnomah School District No. 1, Susan Winthrop (supervisor), Robert Crebo (special education director), and Larry Whitson (later dropped) were the respondents.

The Court Ruling:
The district court’s jury was in favor on all of Settlegoode’s claims and awarded her a $1 million settlement. The defendants Winthrop and Crebo were each ordered to pay $50,000. Then a magistrate judge overturned the jury award. However, Settlegoode appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reversed the magistrate’s decision and reinstated the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court stated Settlegoode’s free speech rights were implicated and the content of her speech was helpful to the employer and of paramount concern to parents of disabled children, whereas the defendants were not able to offer evidence that other teachers were terminated for drafting similar “inadequate” IEPs nor did they review and adjust the inadequate IEPs.

The Case’s Impact:
The ruling for this case basically opened the door for any teacher who is being oppressed in their working environment for standing up for their students. It allows teachers to communicate, in their professional opinion, about the needs of students in their classrooms. However, this case also shows that one must keep detailed written records (logs, calendars, journals, letters) to back up one’s claim and to help resolve the dispute quickly. This is otherwise known as keeping a well-organized paper trail. What schools can take away from this case is that teachers are in the best position to know whether their students are receiving the education and services that they are legally entitled to. So if teachers are brave enough to speak out on such matters (and they have the freedom of speech to do so), schools should take heed and look into their complaints or suggestions.

Case 5:

Name of Case: S-1 v. Turlington

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
Seven Clewiston High School students, who were classified with varying degrees of mental retardation, were expelled for “misconduct” early on in the 1977-1978 school year, and the expulsion continued for the entire 1978-1979 school year as well. Two other students requested due process hearings to determine if they had been evaluated or if they had an IEP, but were denied. These nine students filed suit against Ralph Turlington, Florida’s Commissioner of Education, claiming their rights were violated under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA – now EHA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The trial court affirmed that their rights were denied and issued a preliminary injunction. The defendants charged that the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion, because disciplinary actions are to be solely local.

The Stakeholders:
1. The petitioners were S-1 (minor) and P-1 (mother). This was a class action suit initiated by nine students.
2. Ralph D. Turlington (Florida’s Commissioner of Education), the State Board of Education, Dr. Douglas Crawford (Director of the Division of Public Schools), and Dr. Wendy Cullar (Chief, Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students) were the respondents.

The Court Ruling:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that handicapped students facing exclusion from school are entitled to more detailed procedural protections than non-handicapped students are. The appellate court also ruled that when a preliminary injunction is issued, a student couldn’t be expelled for misconduct that is a manifestation of the disability. Plus, schools must bear the burden of proving that the student’s behavior does not stem from the disability. Finally the court ruled that if a handicapped student is in fact expelled, the child is still entitled to educational services.

The Case’s Impact:
I think this case encourages educators to watch students more closely and to protect the students in case they engage in a misconduct that is a manifestation of their disability. The ruling in this case stresses that under EHA, a student who is handicapped has the right “to a free and appropriate education”. The ruling also pointed out that under Section 504, a student couldn’t be punished for misconduct that is a direct result of the student’s disability. I think that it would be very hard for schools to be able to prove that a student’s misconduct was unrelated to his or her handicap. Thus, schools should look to the principles outlined by the appellate court for guidance and should review their policies to make sure they conform closely to the standards set forth in EHA and Section 504.

Case 6:

Name of Case: Lawyer v. Chesterfield

Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions:
Six-year-old autistic Danny Lawyer had expressive language and phonological processing problems along with verbal apraxia. Experts advised Danny’s parents that his ability to be self-sufficient and independent as an adult depended on his ability to communicate, and thus stated Danny needed intensive and continuous services, without the usual summer breaks. So Danny’s parents requested speech language services to be extended for him for the summer months. The school district rejected the request. So the parents requested a due process hearing. The Hearing Officer ordered the school to provide an extended year program, but ruled against
reimbursing the parents for any services they purchased for Danny. The school district appealed. The Reviewing Officer overturned the Hearing Officer’s decision on the extended year services. The parents then appealed the case to the Federal Court.

The Stakeholders:
1. The petitioner is Danny Stephen Lawyer (student).
2. Chesterfield County School Board was the respondent.

The Court Ruling:
In order for Danny to receive FAPE, the court ruled that he needed uninterrupted speech and communication services that an Extended School Year (ESY) provides. The decision was based on several factors. First, experts found communication to be critical to Danny’s behavior needs and his future vocational needs. Second, the experts also stated there was a small window of opportunity in which Danny could learn effectively. This window is generally between the ages of five and eight years old, which Danny fell in between. Finally, there was proof from prior summers of Danny’s regression when he did not receive speech language services. Therefore, Chesterfield County School Board was ordered to provide ESY services, including a total of six hours per week of speech language therapy, to Danny.

The Case’s Impact:
The ruling in this case clarified that (ESY) services could include, or even be limited to, “related” services such as the speech therapy that Danny Lawyer needed. Schools need to accept and realize that they are required by law, by IDEA’s FAPE clause, to provide special education services beyond the usual school year if a student is identified as needing this. So it is the function of the school district to evaluate the need for ESY services correctly and fairly for each student. Schools also need to have a plan in place to deal with the other related matters such as funding and transportation.

Hector School District’s Procedural Safeguard Form

Hector School District’s (HSD) Procedural Safeguard Form can be broken up into eight main sections. The first section discusses mainly general information. HSD must give parents written notice whenever it proposes to, or refuses to, begin or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of their child. Included in the written notice will be a detailed explanation of why HSD is taking or refusing to take the action, along with a review of how parents can obtain a description of the procedural safeguards and resources for them to contact if they need further help with understanding this decision. This section also explains how parental consent is required before HSD can conduct initial evaluations for eligibility of services for their child, before HSD can provide initial services, and before HSD can reevaluate the child. HSD must also make reasonable effort to obtain parental consent and keep such documentation. Finally, this section tells parents they have the right to obtain one independent educational evaluation for their child, at no cost to them, if they disagree with a HSD evaluation. HSD will provide information on where this can be obtained and the district’s criteria that must be met.
Section two discusses confidentiality of information. Parents are told how their child’s information is safely stored, retained, disclosed to certain third parties, and destroyed. They are told they have access to inspect and review their own child’s records at any time and before any meeting or due process hearing. A record of who accesses their child’s information is also kept. If the parent believes the educational record is inaccurate or misleading, and HSD refuses to change the information, parents are instructed that they have the right to a hearing and HSD must ensure it happens. Consent from parents must be attained before disclosure of the child’s information to other parties. Plus, parents must be informed when information is to be destroyed.
Sections three and four give parents step-by-step instructions on how to file both a state complaint and a due process complaint, and it explains the 60-calendar-day and the 45-calendar-day timelines respectively. Parents are told about model forms they can use to help them fill out the complaints. HSD must also make mediation available to the parents and school, at no cost to the parents, to help resolve the disagreement. Parents are also told that their child will remain in his or her educational placement until the proceedings or mediation is finished.
Section five walks parents through the hearings on due process complaints. The opportunity for impartial due process hearings is explained, as is the general rights afforded to each party, including the requirements for disclosure of evaluation results and recommendations.
Section six explains exactly how parents can appeal the hearing decision by filing a civil action within 90 days of the decision. Also discussed in this section is attorney fees, and the various situations that may require either the parents, their lawyer, or the state educational agency to pay. Finally, reasons why the court may or may not reduce the fees is explained.
Section seven explains in detail the procedures that HSD will take to discipline children with disabilities. Students with disabilities cannot be suspended or removed from their current placement for more than ten school days in a row. If it exceeds ten days, then HSD must provide the child educational services and other services outlined in the IEP in a temporary alternative educational setting. Plus, the IEP team must review the information and determine if the conduct in question was a manifestation of the disability. Specific instructions are given for this, as are how a parent can appeal and file a due process complaint regarding the decision.
Finally, section eight explains all of the requirements for unilateral placement by parents of children in private schools at public expense. Basically, HSD is not required to pay for the cost of your child’s private school education if it can provide a free appropriate public education.
Important Special Education Terms

1. Stay-Put:

In the special education setting, the concept Stay-Put, also known as Status Quo, is enforced during a due process hearing or court review when the proceedings are pending. This right, provided by IDEA, comes into play when the child’s parents disagree with a change the school district wants to make to their child’s educational placement. Thus, the Stay-Put provision basically means the child must be kept in the current educational placement until the dispute is settled, and the child should continue to receive the same amount of services. However, IDEA says that the parents must invoke this right within fifteen days of the required school notice for the proposed change being sent. To invoke this right, a due process complaint or a request for mediation must be filed.
Exceptions to enforcing Stay-Put includes when both the school and parent agree otherwise, when there are safety concerns present, or if an initial state hearing officer decision or a subsequent state review decision agrees with the parents’ belief that a change in the educational placement is needed and appropriate. When safety concerns are present, such as if the student is involved with drugs or if there is a potential for committing bodily injury, then school officials are given more latitude in regards to the Stay-Put concept.
The rationale behind the Stay-Put concept is to provide the child with the most consistent, stable educational environment as possible. This is important since the due process hearing proceedings consist of many stages. Thus, the process can be very time consuming and drawn out, and it can appear to support either side multiple different times throughout its duration. Therefore, the Stay-Put concept promotes a consistency in the child’s life during this possibly turmoil-filled time.

2. Response to Intervention:

The term Response to Intervention (RTI) was first introduced and encouraged within the 2004 Amendments of IDEA. There were existing problems in the traditional special education eligibility process; the main ones being potential bias in standardized assessment instruments and the requirement for a specified discrepancy between the potential and achievement prior to the determination for eligibility. Thus, the 2004 Amendments required the regular education classroom to implement alternative solutions to student needs prior to referring a child for special education. So, the RTI approach became part of the process to identify students with specific learning disabilities.
RTI is basically a process in which scientifically proven methods, strategies, and tools are chosen and recommended by an interdisciplinary team for a regular education classroom teacher to use with a student who is struggling with the regular classroom activities, but does not either exhibit the need for a special education evaluation or who has not been identified yet as needing special education. The teacher is to implement these interventions to help the student be successful academically by improving and maintaining his or her rate of learning to what is considered an acceptable level.
The RTI approach also gives the intervention team the needed student data, such as the child’s learning rate and level of performance. This data can help them later determine if the struggling child should receive more intense interventions, or if the child should be referred for special education evaluation and services based on a likely specific learning disability.
Teachers often use the RTI process with any student who is struggling with a skill, concept, or lesson. The RTI framework is typically seen as a pyramid with three levels, or tiers, within it. The majority of students, and the most commonly used strategies and interventions are found in Tier 1, the bottom level. The next level up, Tier 2, occurs when more intensive and focused interventions are given for a student who is still exhibiting struggle. Finally, Tier 3 is considered to be the top level of the RTI pyramid. Here, students receive the most intense interventions. This top tier is where children with identified disabilities often fall.