A STATE COMPLAINT
Disclaimer: All individuals involved in the creation of this complaint waive confidentiality.
It is important for all parents to see what a state complaint looks like. This one is based on my recent IEP/FBA meeting and the independent evaluation done (confirmation of dyslexia diagnosis).
Yes, this looks complicated.
Yes, there are many legalities.
Yes, we the parents must reach this point to remind the districts the laws are being violated.
What will come out of this?
I don't know.
But after 2.5yrs dealing with Pinellas Cty Schools on my own, this step is meaningful and I am taking the responsibility to report the wrongs taking place.
Linda Montalbano and Joey Poirier - my advocates - are the masterminds behind this document.
No monetary exchange has taken place to accomplish this.
*********************************************************************************
Subject: Poirier-19 (2015-2016) State Complaint--Pinellas County
ISSUE 1: Whether the Pinellas County School District violated the requirements related to evaluation of a student suspected of being a student with SLD for the 2015-2016 school year.
ISSUE 2: Whether the Pinellas County School District violated the state requirements related to the consideration of Independent educational evaluation presented by the parent on November 10, 2015.
ISSUE 3: Whether the Pinellas County School District violated the requirements related to conducting MTSS for the 2015-2016 school year.
Facts relating to this complaint:
1. School staff violated child find when they refused to evaluate for dyslexia when the parent asked in 2013-14 school year and the child was in 1st grade on a kindergarten reading level and never gave the parent a consent form for evaluating for dyslexia. It takes an independent evaluation to identify the child has dyslexia so all the IEP's before that only identify the child with autism. This is a NY decision because we don't have them in Florida.
State Review Officer Decision #93-2 (Iarussi vs. Port Jervis City School District) "The CSE must also reconsider the child's IEP. An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the findings of the child's evaluations in identifying the child's needs, provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's needs and establishes annual goals which are related to remediation of the child's educational deficits"
2. School staff started the MTSS program without telling the parent. The parent found out on November 10, 2015 during an IEP meeting at San Jose Elementary School.
6A-6.03018 Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. (2) General education intervention procedures and activities. In order to ensure that lack of academic progress is not due to lack of appropriate instruction, a group of qualified personnel must consider: (a) Data that demonstrate that the student was provided well-delivered scientific, research-based instruction and interventions addressing the identified area(s) of concern and delivered by qualified personnel in general education settings; and, (b) Data-based documentation, which was provided to the student’s parent(s) or guardian(s), of repeated measures of achievement at reasonable intervals, graphically reflecting the student’s response to intervention during instruction."
3. MTSS is used to delay and deny children with dyslexia and other disabilities from receiving intensive science based interventions. School staff are starting the MTSS over again and disregarding the data they have now. As Theresa M. Millan states in her e-mail November 11, 2015: "The Tier 3 intervention is Build Up, which can begin with your consent." Administrative Law judge Robert E. Meale recognized how school staff denied the student in this decision:
April 1, 2015 Highlands County School Board Administrative Law judge Robert E. Meale decision Case#15-0985E he found the schools use of MTSS was only to delay and deny a child referral, evaluation, classification and services under IDEA: "28. MTSS interventions were futile in Petitioner's case...MTSS features classroom-based interventions..." "29. MTSS provides a classroom teacher with interventions to assist a student without the need for more intensive services, such as might be provided after a referral for special education and related services. MTSS comprises three tiers of interventions. As Ms. Terreros testified, all students receive Tier 1 interventions, which constitute what typically takes place in a general education classroom, so Ms. Terreros initiated Tier 2 interventions." "30. Ms. Terreros described some Tier 2 academic interventions, such as pullout tutoring in groups of five or six students and one-on-one assistance." "Typically, though, Respondent does not refer a student from evaluation for placement in special education and related services until Tier 3 interventions have been tried and found unsuccessful." "...two months that elapsed between Respondent's futile implementation of MTSS interventions and its obtaining of the parents' consent to an evaluation..." "...Respondent's implementation of MTSS in Petitioner's case appears to have been a formulaic exercise, whose practical effect was only to delay the point at which staff would have to undertake the work to evaluate Petitioner for placement in special education and related services."
4. School staff refuse to do any comprehensive evaluations for dyslexia. I know this is NY case law but we don't have any in Florida and federal regulations.
New York State Commissioner of Education decision #10418 Matter of a Handicapped Child, Ed. Dept. Rep. (12/8/80) "Informal assessments, school staff observations, various psychological and psychiatric reports and transportation incident reports do not take the place of a comprehensive evaluation preformed by a multi-disciplinary team in order to determine a child's proper classification and placement."
§ 300.304 Evaluation procedures (c) Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that (6) In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
§ 300.304 Evaluation procedures (c) Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that (7) Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.
§300.15 Evaluation Evaluation means procedures used in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 to determine whether a child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs.
5. School staff will only do programs they have in their school.
"OCR letter of Finding, Santa Clara County Office of Education, EHLR 257:379 (1983) (an IEP that was based on the ability of the district to deliver the services rather than on the child's needs violated 34 C.F.R. 300.346).
500.2(d) Appropriate Placement not Determined by Availability of Public Program. The determination of the appropriateness of a proposed public placement may not be based solely on the availability of a newly developed or established program.”
500.2(c) Appropriate Placement Not Determined by the Verbal Representations of the Program Director.
6. Minimal progress is all a child needs to do. This child is at kindergarten/first grade levels in reading and school staff write a goal she will be on 3rd grade level next November. She is not making the minimal 2 months in progress in their reading programs to make that progress. She is going to fail the 3rd grade common core testing. The suggestion is she should repeat 2nd grade.
Polk v. Central, CV Intermediate Unit 16, the Third Circuit stated that "the Rowley Court described the education that must be provided under the EHA as 'meaningful.' The use of the term 'meaningful' indicates that the Court expected more than de minimis benefit."
US District Ct Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division County School Board of Henrico Count, Virginia, Plaintiff, v. R. T. , a minor, et. al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:04cv923 "Not unmindful of the significant funding limitations on the School Board, the Court finds that the School Board’s conduct in this matter reflects the inertia to which Congress was referring when it wrote in the IDEA that “the implementation of this chapter has been impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities. ”
November 10, 2015 Linda Montalbano and the parent Yadira Calderon attended an IEP meeting to create a new IEP for the 2015-16 school year and review the independent evaluation done by Florida licensed psychologist Dr. Susan Crum. The school district agreed to pay for the independent evaluation in a settlement agreement if the following was done:
"3. Obligations of Yadira Calderon, on behalf of T.M.: a. Yadira Calderon will provide PCSB staff with a copy of Dr. Crum's completed evaluation within five days of receipt."
Dr. Crum's report is dated November 9th and was provided to Linda Montalbano on the 9th by Dr. Crum's office. She brought the original signed report to Yadira Calderon that night and it was delivered to school staff at the IEP meeting on the 10th at the school.
"b. Yadira Calderon will sign a Consent for Reevaluation form for evaluations needed to determine if TM is eligible for under the category of Specific Learning Disability."
Yadira Calderon signed consent for evaluations to be done at the IEP meeting on the 10th but was told there will be no evaluations. She was told they are going to continue the MTSS program that Thomais’ was at level 3. Linda asked what about doing a Woodcock-Johnson and was told that is not required and they don't do that test. They are doing no evaluations just continue the MTSS and this is the requirements to determine if Thomais qualifies for classification under Specific Learning Disability. The school staff are claiming this is what is done in Florida.
The school staff are required to do the following:
"b. PCSB will open reevaluation in order to evaluate whether the student is eligible to receive services as Specific Learning Disabled (SLD). The report by Dr. Crum will be one of the instruments reviewed by the team in order to determine eligibility, but that evaluation alone is not sufficient to meet the eligibility criteria pursuant to Rule 6A-6.03018, Florida Administrative Code. The team may also request additional evaluations and data collection in order to determine eligibility."
The school staff are not asking for any additional evaluations they want to continue "...data collection in order to determine eligibility." The claim is they have to start at the beginning and spend the next several months to meet this requirement:
6A-6.03018 Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. (2) General education intervention procedures and activities. In order to ensure that lack of academic progress is not due to lack of appropriate instruction, a group of qualified personnel must consider: (a) Data that demonstrate that the student was provided well-delivered scientific, research-based instruction and interventions addressing the identified area(s) of concern and delivered by qualified personnel in general education settings; and, (b) Data-based documentation, which was provided to the student’s parent(s) or guardian(s), of repeated measures of achievement at reasonable intervals, graphically reflecting the student’s response to intervention during instruction."
In an e-mail dated: Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Theresa Millan MA, NCSP Nationally Certified School Psychologist wrote the parent:
"After the meeting I met with our Educational Diagnostician, Sandy Moser, who was able get the necessary data to develop the Problem Solving Worksheet (PSW), which is a required piece of the evaluation for Specific Learning Disability. It’s an academic “plan”, similar in theory to the FBA behavior plan, just focusing on reading, not behavior.
Ms. Corell will deliver the intensive reading intervention, and TM's progress will be monitored weekly, and we will meet to review the data, assess her progress and revise the plan as needed. Usually we meet when the plan is developed and then initiate it. I know time is of the essence, and if convenient, we could either meet or have a phone conference tomorrowmorning and I could review the plan with you so we can get it started. Would you be interested in that? I could call you around 9:30, review the plan with you, and it could begin tomorrow. Once interventions are in place, we need to give Thomais time to respond to the intervention, in order to determine if it is the right one for her."
TM has been in the Pinellas County Schools for 1/2 a year of pre-school, Kindergarten, 1st grade and now is in 2nd grade. She is classified under Autism. Reading, writing and math have been an issue from the beginning. For the past 14-18 months the parent Yadira Calderon, has been voicing her concerns that her daughter may have dyslexia because she has observed her daughter reversing letters and is not learning how to read the school work sent home. She reads with her daughter every night. The school district this school year sent home a reading program Steck-Vaughn Pair-Extreme Leveled Reader 6pk Grade Kindergarden-1 level. It is not a reading program but is student resource material and it is a look at the picture and the name is on the picture. The parent is supposed to sit every night with their child and point to the pictures and word.
Comments recorded during the meeting on November 10, 2015 by the mother:
1. One of IEP team members stated: ''Behavior does not allow her to learn how to read.''
2. For the past 14-18 months I have been bringing up the word dyslexia and the challenges we face while doing reading homework and night reading
3. Summer Bridge teacher stated during August meeting that Thomais does not have dyslexia
4. In previous meetings I was told her learning how to read process it was normal for a kid with autism.
5. As a parent I insisted this was not normal and my observations were dismissed. That is why I insisted on an independent evaluation.
6. I finally have an evaluation confirming she has dyslexia by a licensed Florida Neuro-psychologist.
6A-6.03018 Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. (2) General education intervention procedures and activities. In order to ensure that lack of academic progress is not due to lack of appropriate instruction, a group of qualified personnel must consider: (c) General education activities and interventions conducted prior to referral in accordance with subsection 6A-6.0331(1), F.A.C., may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of this rule.
The parent and Linda Montalbano received an e-mail of November 11, 2015 from Theresa M. Millan, MA, NCSP Nationally Certified School Psychologist Pinellas County Schools outlining what they intend to do to evaluate the child with the MTSS.
From: MILLANT@pcsb.org To: racayadi@gmail.com CC: MOSERS@pcsb.org; corella@pcsb.org; BROWNLISA@pcsb.org; ryant@pcsb.org; urania32@hotmail.com; Monica.Verra-Tirado@fldoe.org Subject: RE: PSW - Problem Solving Worksheet Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:37:51 +0000
Hi Yadira,
The Tier 3 intervention is Build Up, which can begin with your consent. This intervention would be provided daily, and we would monitor Thomais’ progress weekly. We can meet after 3 weeks to review the data of her progress, and see how she is responding to the intervention.
This is the evaluation for Specific Learning Disability, assessing her response to intervention.
Do you want me to call you tomorrow morning at 9:30? Then if you are in agreement, we can begin immediately.
Thanks,
Teri
Theresa M. Millan, MA, NCSP
Nationally Certified School Psychologist
Pinellas County Schools
777777
Thanks,
From: YADIRA CALDERON [mailto:racayadi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:00 PM To: Millan Theresa Cc: Moser Sandra; Corell Angela; Brown Lisa - San Jose ES; Ryan Terry; Linda Montalbano; Monica.Verra-Tirado Subject: Re: PSW - Problem Solving Worksheet
Hi Terri
Please provide in writing name and details about intensive reading program to be used. What does it address? Components?
You plan to monitor work being done for how long?
What other requirements need to be fulfilled to complete eval for SLD? How long?
Time is of the essence and after 2.5 yrs in the school system, an academic plan is initiated while she's academically behind 1.5 yrs.
Looking forward to more details, in writing.
Yadira
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Millan Theresa <MILLANT@pcsb.org> wrote:
Hi Yadira,
It was nice to see you yesterday. After the meeting I met with our Educational Diagnostician, Sandy Moser, who was able get the necessary data to develop the Problem Solving Worksheet (PSW), which is a required piece of the evaluation for Specific Learning Disability. It’s an academic “plan”, similar in theory to the FBA behavior plan, just focusing on reading, not behavior.
Ms. Corell will deliver the intensive reading intervention, and TM's progress will be monitored weekly, and we will meet to review the data, assess her progress and revise the plan as needed. Usually we meet when the plan is developed and then initiate it. I know time is of the essence, and if convenient, we could either meet or have a phone conference tomorrow morning and I could review the plan with you so we can get it started. Would you be interested in that? I could call you around 9:30, review the plan with you, and it could begin tomorrow. Once interventions are in place, we need to give TM time to respond to the intervention, in order to determine if it is the right one for her.
Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you.
Teri
Theresa M. Millan, MA, NCSP
Nationally Certified School Psychologist
Pinellas County Schools
777777
