I BACKGROUND
A Statutory
Framework
The crux of the Plaintiffs’ case relates to alleged violations
of multiple public laws in relation to
children with disabilities, minorities, and other exceptional students.
Public Law 88-164 1963 the
Community Mental Health Act, Public Law 93-112 US Rehabilitation ACT of 1973 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of Disability, 94-142 Education of All Handicapped
Children Act 1975,
Handicapped Amendments of 1986, Individual Family service Plan ACT 99-457,
Public Law 101-336
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, Public Law 107-110
No Child left Behind
Act of 2001, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, NO. 05-4627, have stated
that the public
education has to provide supportive education for autistic, handicapped, and
special needs
children.
The laws also provide for
family and community involvement for educational
support.
There are multiple CODES that are outlined in the motion that
could have assisted the School
District of Philadelphia, and the School Reform Commission, in providing
quality education.
The District, instead, has decided, without
demonstrable probable cause, to uproot, displace,
and arbitrary transfer special needs students, by closing schools, increasing
the transportation
burden, and decreasing their chance of educational success.
The health of an individual
is directly related to their obtained educational level. The health of a fortyish-
year high school
dropout is comparable to a sixty year old college graduate. (Hankins, 2010)
The closing of multiple high schools
with children with multiple special needs without pursuing all
possible stabilizing possibilities is against these stated laws.
The Germantown
High School has
30% homeless students, 30% special needs, and others that are handicapped.
The District has
not provided the financial records, or how the IEPs for the individuals will be modified to
provide the additional supportive services that these students will need after
these forced transfers
and school closures.
There must be budgetary and program
implantation of the IEP requirement per the proposed
settlement against the School District of Philadelphia NO. 94-CV-4048 (E.D.
Pa.).
This case
was filed on June 30, 1994 by twelve students with disabilities against the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (PDE) and the State Board of Education.
The settlement obligated
PDE to undertake a series of reforms of its systems for exercising general
supervision over special
education throughout Pennsylvania. The
School District of Philadelphia, and the School
Reform Commission, has not considered this Court ruling in their decision to
transfer special
needs students, without proper due diligence.
By transferring special needs
children without outlining the proper provisions the
District
violates the Individuals and Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et, seq. and
Chapter 14 of the
Pennsylvania Code. These transfers are
scheduled to occur with little or no parental involvement,
without required consideration of the children’s individualized circumstances,
and in direct
violation of the mandated individual planning process of the IDEA.
II Legal Analysis
The proposed arbitrary closure of
multiple schools with children with special needs violates
§504 of the Rehabilitation ACT, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
the action
of the school district to close and transfer special needs students, without
allowing the parents is in violation of the “proposes
to initiate or change” the “educational placement of the
child”, 20 U. S. C. §1415.
The School District’s, and the
School Reform Commission’s, massive transfer of special needs
children, without regard for their rehabilitation, creates an inference of
discrimination.
Courts in
the Third Circuit have observed that for purposes of ADA and § 504,
discrimination can be
inferred from a school district’s “deliberate indifference” toward students
with disabilities.
See, e.g., Chambers v. School Dist. of
Philadelphia Bd. of Education, 827 F. Supp. 2d 409, 425
(E.D. Pa Oct. 24, 2011); Adam C. v. Scranton Sch. Dist., No 3:07-cv-532, 2011
WL 4072756, at
*5-6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011).
Homeless children are particularly sensitive to arbitrary
moves. How can the District know the
cost of the impact on the homeless student population if their numbers are not known, and
the cost of their special needs considered in the cost saving equations.
The Board should
provide the demographic breakdown of each school of the proposed closure and document how
the additional needs of the special needs, handicapped, homeless, and foster care
students are going to be addresses.
The School Board, and the School
Reform Commission, does not follow all six of the NATIONAL
POLICY BOARD FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION’s guidelines. Published Jan., 2012, they
determine the criteria for an effective educational board.
The guidelines
are:
Standards
for Advanced Programs in Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership
for
Principals, Superintendents, Curriculum Directors and Supervisors.
Standard
1.0: Candidates who complete the
program are educational leaders who have the knowledge
and ability to promote the success of all students by facilitating the
development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by
the school community.
Standard
2.0: Candidates who complete the
program are educational leaders who have the knowledge
and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive
school culture,
providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student
learning, and
designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff.
Standard
3.0: Candidates who complete the
program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and
ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations,
and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Standard 4.0:
Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and
ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families
and other
community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing
community resources.
Standard
5.0: Candidates who complete the
program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and
ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity,
fairly, and in an
ethical manner.
Standard 6.0: Candidates who complete the program are
educational leaders who have the knowledge
and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding
to, and
influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural
context.
While these standards are not laws,
they can assist in determine how far the
Philadelphia’s
Educational School Board, and the School Reform Commission, is removed from the ability
to provide leadership towards a quality education for our students.
THE PREMATURE ATTEMPT TO CLOSE MULTIPLE
MINORITY PHILADELPHIA SCHOOLS
SHOULD BE HALTED. THIS WOULD COMPLETELY DISMANTLE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN
PHILADELPHIA. THE CLAIM OF LACK OF FUNDING AS THE REASON BEHIND THE SYSTEMS FAILURE
IS, IN FACT, A POSSIBLE COVER UP FOR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, OR INTEREST IN
THE DEMOGRAPHICS OR SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE STUDENTS OF THE FREE PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM.
THE CITY, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, HAVE FAILED TO
PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION
AND THE NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIAL NEEDS, HOMELESS, HANDICAPPED
AND MINORITY STUDENTS OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. CONSEQUENTLY, JEOPARDIZING,
THE ENTIRE STUDENT BODY.
IF THE PROPER LAWS ARE FOLLOWED, AS OUTLINED, THERE WILL BE
ENOUGH FUNDING AND SUPPORT,
TO PROVIDE A QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL OF THE STUDENTS. THERE COULD ALSO BE
JOBS, SCIENCE, AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION, THAT CONTRIBUTES TO COMMUNITY STABILIZATION AND, THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE, IN HIGH RISKS NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE SUPPORT THE
USE OF THE LAW AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, TO SUPPLEMENT, SUPPORT, AND
BUILD UP THE PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
The Philadelphia
Board of Education, and the School Reform Commission, has been negligent in
providing additional care and programming for the approximately 30% homeless, 30% special
needs, and 30% handicapped students that are part of their educational population.
These students for fill the special needs criteria as they are from unstable
homes, foster
homes, adjudicated youths, and are literacy and technology challenged. These students need
additional support to assist them in preparation for the future and to keep them
away from the
school to prison pipeline, and for medical health concerns.
The Public Law 94-142, the
Educational of All Handicapped Children Act, this measure was designed
“to assure that all handicapped children have available to them free appropriate public
education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to
meet their unique
needs”.
The key provisions of the Act
are zero rejection, nondiscriminatory
evaluations,
IEP-individualized education programs, less restrictive environments, due
process, and parental
participation.
Three particular parts of
this Law has been violated by the
Philadelphia
School District, and the School Reform Commission:
per student need and prior to major changes.
decisions and accountability.
The attempting to close Germantown High, and other school with 30% special needs, while not considering closing
other majority schools
in the Northeast section of the City, denies due process.
should be consulted, and approve any transfers prior to their
implementation.
The IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
mandates IEP standards as well as
transition services for students age 16. The School Board has not stated how the
services
would be
provided if the students were forced to transfer.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) has
been ignored by the School
District, and the School Reform Commission.
This provision states that additional support may
be supplied if a child needs intervention, but may not fit the criteria of IDEA.
These
provisions, must be considered to mandate a bridge between general and special education.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1992, extended civil rights to persons with
disabilities. It is the right of our homeless, and special needs
children, to have ease of access to a public
education. It is illegal to add to the walking distance, transportation
problems, and safety needs
of these students, when the burden is only unfairly to be forced on minority, special
needs and handicapped children ,without a clear definition as to why this is
needed, and what
other budgetary concerns have been considered prior to proposing cuts.
Public Law 107-110: No Child Left
Behind-encourages educational proficiency for all children. Stability contributes to academic success.
Federal actions also provide for
gifted children. The Javits Act (PL
100-297) provides for gifted
exceptional students. The Board, and the School Reform Commission must provide unbiased
programs for support. These parents must
also participate in the decisions prior to any
educational transfers.
The Board has elected
to close schools and decrease programs, ignoring the
established
educational guidelines, which states that familiarity leads to greater success
for at risk
students.
The Board, and the School Reform Commission, should be
securing Federal funding, and support,
under the categories of special needs, disabled, homeless, handicapped, and
minority students.
As
outlined below, there are FEDERAL CODES to assist these students, therefore stabilizing
the Public School System as a whole.
The priority should be for the support for
these special
needs children, rather than uprooting them to new and unnecessarily challenging environments..
The United States Code Annotated 2012 specifically provides
for at risk youths and communities.
For example, CODES 42 §11301, 11434, 11333,
11432, helps to provide
additional
support for homeless children, with incentive care programming, and community science and
educational support.
The City of Philadelphia, and the School Reform Commission,
did discriminate against the special
needs and handicapped children of the school system, by suggesting that the
children be uprooted,
when stability and familiarity are the best practices for special needs and handicapped
children.
There is disability assistance
available by CODES 42 § 1185 and 2000, and others,
that the District, and the School Reform Commission, has not fully utilized.
The State of Pennsylvania has neglected to provide for its
most needy citizens, promoting the neglect
and potential abuse of these special needs and homeless children.
The State has
not made
available Federal assistance under the CODE 29 § 3003, and special needs grants
for handicapped
children.
Surely children in foster care, with limited reading ability, and
unstable home lives,
deserve this Federal aid. The State did
not make the Congressional Accessibility Services per
CODE 2 §§130, 2251, 2252, or the Family Violence Prevention funds or services available to
the Philadelphia School District, and the School Reform Commission.
If it had,
the City would
be providing professional support services to the students, and jobs to the
citizens to help with
programs.
There should also be Federal Aid to the District per CODE 29 §794,
and Community
Development funding per CODE 42 §5309.
There are applicable laws for assistance for Education, for
the Disabled, the
Handicapped
and the Homeless. Unfortunately, over 30
% of our students in Philadelphia’s educational system
qualifies under those categories. Let us get the resources earmarked for their quality
education.
The applicable potentially helpful CODES, and possible violated
CODES for the
Philadelphia School District, and the
School Reform Commission, are as outlined. The bold and *
CODES, deserve special attention.
The applicable CODES are, but not limited to:
Nat’l Advisory 20 2503,
3473,
Equal Access 20 §4071
Accountability 20 7301,
Science Institute 20 9581, 3992
Nat’l Board 20 9516,
9577
Funds 20 1234g
Muslim Youth 22 2228
Mathematics 20 3992
Nat’l
Assessment 20 9624
Regional
Educational Lab* 20 9584
Graduate
Med 42 256h*
Bilateral
Dev. Assistance* 22 2151-1 Career 20 2501
Grants 20 2505*,
2534
Office
of Career Edu. 20 2503,
3473*
Workshops 20 2505
Cyber… learning 42 1862*
Bulling 47 254*
Technical Assistance 20 9601*
Tech Opportunities 40 549**
Rules & Regulation 20 1232*
Dependent
Care Grants* 42 9874, 247b-9a
Early
Learning Opportunities 42 9401*
Entitlement 20 1234*
Nat’l
Anti Drug 21 1521*
Advancement
Science 42 1885*
Education 42 2000d*
Fed
programs* 20 §§1231*, 1232
General 42 11301,
11432, 11434, 11433
Formula Grant 42 290cc
Surplus
Property 42 11411*
Appropriations 42 11360a, 11384, 11408,
Education 42 11435
Children 42 11435
, 11432*
Emergency 42 11432*
Payments 42 290cc*
Community 20 2701
Grants 42 290cc++,
11382
Training 42 11421
Family
Separation 42 11361a
Funds 42 11386b++, 11386
Continuum of
Care 42 11381
Grants 42 11382 ++
Emergency
Solutions 42 11371**
Discrimination
Grant 42 290cc
Surplus
Property 42 11411++
Children
FUNDS 42 11386b
Children
Public Policy 42 11431*
Eligibility 42 11383
Supportive
Services 42 11385*
Incentives 42 11386b,
11384, 11386d
Education
Adults 42 11421*
School
Lunches 42 1769
Sexual
Assault 42 11302
Supplemental
Income 42 1383
Advocacy
grants 29 3003, 3004
Assistance 42 15001
Grants,
States 29 3003*
Public
awareness grants 29 3003
Task Force 29 3036
Technical
assistance 29 3003D
Community
service grants 42 12644a
Day care
safety grants 42 9859*
Congressional
Accessibility Services 2 §§130e, 2251, 2252
Assistive
devices 29 3002
Discrimination 29 §§701, 11758, 793
Federal Aid 29 794
Community
Development 42 5309
Family
violence prevention 42 10406
Head start 42 §§9835,
9846
Foster Care 26 131
President’s
Committee on employment 36 §§2501, 2502
