What is important on this web site? 

It is a unique look at special education for parents of ESE students.

For parents attending IEP meetings, the "IEP Tips" tab to the left is a must.  This is what your school district and the Florida Department of Education really prefer you not know.  For more on the other tabs, jump to the bottom of the page for additional explanations or just click on the tabs themselves.

Temporarily, information on Drew Sammons and his family's fight to get him an education has been moved to the front of the site due to the interest in the recent court decision.  Just below, information on our fight to get Drew the services he needed to make whatever education he received viable. 

______________________________________________

Advocacy for Drew and Others, The Beginning:

It began in the late 90's, wanting to learn as much as I could about the Polk County School District's ESE Department.  Many problems were evident but seemingly never addressed.  These problems had real and important impacts on several thousand ESE students each year, including my son Drew.  Click on the tab Polk ESE Issues to see just one way in which I tried to bring about a positive change. 

My efforts were not appreciated by the Polk County School District.  Unfortunately, the repercussions negatively impacted my son Drew.  Drew had very complex educational needs.  The last two years of Drew's schooling were spent with a very caring first year ESE teacher that was offered very little support from the specialists needed for even satisfactory progress to be made.  It also appeared to us that significant efforts were made by Polk administrators to have Drew exit the system early, and he was "graduated" in May, 2004.    I asked to submit Drew's early exit to mediation.  The School District refused.  There was a due process hearing in September, 2004.  We were unprepared and lost a hearing we should have won.  We did not meet the burden of proof demonstrating that Drew did not earn the high school credits they gave him.  Now, extensive evidence is on the record showing why Drew did not earn the credits given him to graduate, but the District had the court ruling the district administrators needed to keep him out of the system.  But their first game of Gotcha was a winner for them. 

Since Drew's "graduation", it is our opinion the District has continued to play a series of cruel games of gotcha with our efforts to get Drew back in school.  They clearly won the first round or two.  Not on the facts, but on their strategy.  But we learned they were not interested in doing what was right, just was was most expedient to severely limit the services they had to provided ESE students. 

When a new school superintendent came on board, we were hoping for a change. I asked the new superintendent, Gail McKinzie, Ph.D., if she would meet with me.  I told her I felt that in 30 or 45 minutes we could have it worked out.  She put the decision off on the first two requests, and on the third request said attorneys had advised against it.  For Drew, at least, a new superintendent did not bring about a change.  She has consistently reinforced the board's efforts to keep Drew out of school.  When we tried to keep Drew in school while the litigation continued, the Federal Judge put him back in school to mitigate the damage that could occur due to the interruption in Drew's education.  The School Board litigation team appealed to the Circuit Court in Atlanta, and the Circuit Court ruled in the board's favor, and one morning shortly thereafter, Drew was asked upon his arrival at school to return home and not come back.

I have appeared before the Polk County School Board on many occasions, often,  but not always discussing their unnecessary legal spending on the case.  I have to believe the school board members and the top administrators know fully the facts of the case and have chosen to continue on a course I know has been destructive to Drew, my family, the ESE students of Polk County, and the School Board.

With the help of attorneys Tim Weber and Andrew Lennox of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, Florida, we  have made progress against a school district that is outspending us on legal at least two to one.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Nov. 8th, 2006 Due Process Decision From Administrative Law Judge

It took two years and over $250,000 before my wife and I finally had an opportunity to lay out the facts at a hearing in the summer of 2006.  The facts told of what was not happening the last two years of Drew's education.  By that time the Polk County School District had spent almost one half million dollars in their efforts to avoid addressing the facts.  The district was been presented and a decision by an administrative law judge, Judge William F. Quattlebaum in November, 2006. 

From page 65 of the 67 page November 8th, 2006 Order (Click Here for Entire Order):  

"226. The Schoo1 Board is obligated to provide personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the handicapped student to benefit educationally from that instruction. There is little evidence that any educational benefit was received by A.S. during the 2002—2003 and 2003-2004 school years.  Under the facts of this case, the award of a diploma at the conclusion of the student’s school attendance is insufficient in and of itself to constitute educational benefit.

 ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

DETERMINED that the Polk County School District has not met its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to  A.S. for the 2002—2003 and 2003—2004 school years."

Judge Quattlebaum was the same judge that ruled Drew had earned all of his credits to graduate in our first hearing in 2004.  What happened?  The evidence, including transcripts of IEP meetings and daily logs of academic work, were not presented in 2004 but were now in evidence.  He could not go back and change the outcome of the first hearing, or could he?  Note that once the school board new the truth as to the legitimacy of the credits awarded Drew, they could have brought Drew back into the system as requested by Janie and me.  Janie and I thought that ethically they would be compelled to do so.  Not so.

Our Reaction at the time:

Janie and I greatly appreciated that Judge William F. Quattlebaum confirmed what we believed all along.  The facts confirmed Drew received little, if any, educational benefit his last two years of school. 

But we were surprised when Judge Quattlebaum chose not to address the compensatory remedies in his order.  The judge needed to identify just what it would take to correct the the oppositional behaviors that were reinforced during the last two years of Drew's schooling, and the additional education Drew could have received if the school district had chosen to really seriously consider a diploma option change in 2003 that would have permitted Drew to stay in school another 4 years.  Just after Judge Quattlebalm's ruling, we were expecting to address these matters before Judge Bucklew in Federal Court.  Then we received a new order from Judge Bucklew on November 21, 2006.  

An Order from the Federal Judge (Judge Susan Bucklew):

Just when we were discussing the next step, Judge Bucklew cleared it up for us.  On November 21, 2006, Judge Bucklew remanded the case back to the Administrative Law Judge Quattlebaum, saying:

"Therefore, the Court again remands the case to the ALJ to determine the issue of compensatory education, in its entirety, including the appropriate amount of compensatory education and specific educational services that should be awarded to A.S. in order to compensate him for the denial of FAPE during the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years."

How did we feel then? 

It was discouraging.  Another delay.  Little did we know at the time it would represent a 17 month delay.  From our standpoint, Greg Scharff, Esq.,  and the school district administrators seem made a sport out of this process.  Greg Scharff, the Board's California attorney, and the board members knew the Board has a billion dollar budget, and another half-million dollar expense was very doable. 

Apparently it was worth any amount of money to to the district to demonstrate to all of Polk's ESE parents that Polk will not provide necessary educational services to its students with learning disabilities.  And if a parent doesn't agree, the District can and is willing to prove they will litigate the parent into bankruptcy. 

How does a 17 month delay occur.  Ask a school board attorney that is familiar with the sport.  In our case, we immediately filed an appeal in federal court, given my attorney was concerned the Polk County School District would try to appeal the decision in state court, looking for a more friendly venue and creating additional delays to resolve the litigation.  Sure enough, that is just what they did.  Fortunately they filed in state court the day after we had filed in federal court.  Their filing was not without benefit to the school board.  It cost my family time and money to have to have the suit pulled out of state court.  Time and money is on a school board's side.  

Keep in mind, all of this litigation activity was well after the fact that the Polk County School Board had all kinds of evidence before them that not only demonstrated that Drew had not received the ESE services he so desperately needed, but that in fact, contrary to the conclusion of an earlier hearing on the matter, Drew had not earned the credits he was awarded to graduate him.  It appears to us that the school board and its administrators had set aside ethics to deal with Drew and his family. Drew was being discriminated against, for both his disability and his father's advocacy efforts.

________________________________________________________________________________________

A New Hearing and THE New Decision:

April 24th, 2008

In late August, 2007 we participated in a five day hearing, again before Judge Quattlebalm, to determine what Drew's compensatory education should be awarded him.  On April 28th, 2008 we received the April 24th, 2008 decision.  CLICK HERE to get the FINAL ORDER ON COMPENSATORY EDUCATION.  In it you will find:

"58. The Respondent failed to provide FAPE to the Petitioner. In this case, there is little evidence that any educational benefit was received by the Petitioner during the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years.

59. The Respondent's failure to provide FAPE was not the accidental result of inadequate educational planning. It is clear that the Respondent was either unable or unwilling to provide the appropriate services to which the Petitioner was entitled.

60. During the 2003-2004 school year, the Respondent's focus was the result of an apparent decision by the Respondent to "graduate" the Petitioner from the school system regardless of whether the appropriate services had been provided.

61. The obvious example of the Respondent's determination to move the Petitioner out of the school system was the rejection (with little discussion) of the parents' suggestion that the "regular" diploma track was inappropriate for their child and the simultaneous deletion of goals from the February 2004 IEP towards which there had been no measurable progress.

63. An award of compensatory services to the Petitioner is the appropriate remedy. The Respondent must bear the expense of the private compensatory educational services to which the Petitioner is entitled."

_______________________________________________________________________________

The decision is a win for us, but not really just yet. 

 We will have won when we get Drew back in school getting the education he needs AND when our family has been reimbursed for the legal expense and expert witness fees incurred to get him the education the school district has purposely, continually, and unjustly denied him.  This will be a loss for ESE families if school officials around the state can demonstrate that it will cost parents even if they win.  

Continuing the litigation for Drew has not been easy, but we will continue on to the end.  I am selling an interest I have in a building , the proceeds of which will allow us to vigorously continue the litigation to defend Drew's right to an appropriate education.

_______________________________________________________________________

Let our School Board Know What You Think!

You could help Drew and our family.  If, after reading the decision, you believe the Polk County School District should not continue the litigation with an appeal, please contact the school superintendent and the school board members and let them know how your feel.  Their contact information:

gail.mckinzie@polk-fl.net  (863) 534-0521  Superintendent

         The board member's addresses are:

Frank J. O'Reilly  frank.oreilly@polk-fl.net (863) 647-1390

Lori Cuttingham  lori.cunningham@polk-fl.net (863) 678-0552

Hazel Sellers      hazel.sellers@polk-fl.net (863) 533-7714

Brenda Reddout   brenda.reddout@polk-fl.net  (863) 324-0127

Kay Fields           Kay.Fields@polk-fl.net  (863) 802-5483

Margaret Lofton  Margaret.Lofton@polk-fl.net (863) 294-9076

Tim Harris         Tim.Harris@polk-fl.net    (863) 808-0005

There is no question the ESE department has serious problems.  See the Urban Collaborative's report on Polk's ESE department by CLICKING  HERE.

Thus far, Polk has been very successful at avoiding the provision of needed services to its disabled students.  The District's  outcome data for Polk's students with special needs is horrible.   It appears to us to be one of the worst in the country.  See below!

One Important Note:

 The district hired a new Assistant Superintendent of Learning Support, Nancy Woolcock.  She is a breath of fresh air.  She deserves the support of all ESE parents and staff.  Hopefully, the Board and the District will change their polices and give her the resources she needs to remediate the failures of the past and move forward to present a strong educational opportunity to the children with disabilities in Polk County.  Ethics be damned, they still have not accepted responsibility for providing the Boatrights' daughter the education she needed.  It is difficult to see how Ms. Woolcock can be successful in such an environment hostile to ESE families.

Currently, nationwide 58% of ESE students graduate with a standard diploma.  Statewide, 58% of ESE students graduate with a standard diploma.  In Polk County, 22% of ESE students graduate with a standard diploma.  Our regular ed students come close to meeting the state graduation rate average.  It is our disabled that are discriminated against.

____________________________________________________

Generally, performance data for the performance of ESE programs is difficult to come by.  The Florida DOE has some interesting data, county by county, on it's web site.  The second menu tab on the left, "2006 Polk Co. Data", is an example of how the data is made available.  The third menu tab on the left, "2004 State Data", is a compilation of the statewide data inserted into an Excel spreadsheet I had prepared.  You can see how your county in the State of Florida ranks in comparison to the others in the State.  Unfortunately, Polk County ranks right at the bottom of the 67 counties in Florida.  To compound the problem, Florida ranks very poorly nationally.

On the menu tabs to the left, click on "The Boatrights" to see what a family of a dyslexic student had to go through trying to get trained instructional staff and a proper IEP in an effort to make real progress.  See what the Polk County School District IEP practices are what the Administrative Judge says they should be.  You should be aware that in most of the meetings I had 4 months and more after the ruling, Polk's mid and lower level ESE administrators were not even aware of the judge's ruling or the impact it should have on their procedures.  It appeared the ESE administration had made no effort to correct it's policies and procedures.  I don't know if that is still the case.   Read this section so you can be sure Polk complies with the law in your next IEP.  This is must reading for a parent of any ESE student in the state of Florida and beyond.

The Polk School District has aggressively responded to any attempt to change their minimalist approach toward exceptional student education.   There are many other counties in the state that take the same approach.  The "Polk ESE Issues" tab identifies 20 issues the Polk County School District should address and generally has chosen not to.  Many of these issues are common to other poorly performing school districts. 

The "Polk DOE Audit" tab will get you an example of a Florida Department of Education (DOE) Focused Monitoring report.  Be sure to look at what at  POLK ESE Issues I identified, and then look at what issues the Florida DOE identified and what they did about them.  This is a warning to ESE parents in other school districts who think the Florida DOE will come in and fix their program.  It is a program that looks good bureaucratically, but in real life, has little impact.

If you have ADHD and/or 504 issues, the "ADHD & ESE" tab will be an important one for you.  This has information on a recent ruling in Manatee County, empowering parents to get the services they need for the ADHD student.

"Districts in Court" has information of other school districts that have chosen to fight parents asserting their child's rights to FAPE and the expense they are willing to go to.

The information found at the "In Court for Drew"  was what I believe was a direct result of the Polk ESE Issues paper I presented the School District in 2002.  The paper was not appreciated.  To kill the messenger, the district exited my autistic-spectrum son from the school system early and have spent over $450,000 of legal to keep him out.  "In Court 4 Drew" is an overview of the issues and events.  I am an example for all of the state's ESE parents to see.  Advocacy sometimes carries a price.  There are some school districts in the state that want it to be known the price can be quite high.  In Court for Drew is an overview of the issues and events surrounding

To look at all the details of our experience in court, click on the tab "The Details" to the left.  Here, the issues and events are documented by transcripts of IEP's, transcripts of the Due Process Hearing, depositions of witnesses, the court documents, transcripts of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, copies of the school district's legal bills, etc.  We are talking details.  This information can provide all the background for a good case study for the ethical considerations for a school district board looking to win in court and whether ethical principles should be set aside in favor or a "win at any cost" legal strategy.

Finally, the Urban Collaborative competed a report that is must reading for ESE parents in Polk County.  Click Here to get the PDF file of the report.