Gaskin vs' Pennsylvania Department of Education U'S' District Court

1
Gaskin vs. Pennsylvania Department of
EducationU.S. District Court

• Pennsylvania Department of Education

2
Gaskin vs. Pennsylvania Department of
EducationU.S. District Court

• Filed as class action June 30, 1994
• Twelve PA Students
• Joined by PA organizations

3
CLAIMS UNDER

• IDEA
• Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act
• Americans with Disabilities Act

4
BACKGROUND

• Class consisting of all school age students
  with disabilities
• Plaintiffs Claim PDE does not assure that
  members of the class are educated in regular
  education classroom to the maximum extent
  appropriate, and that those included in the
  regular education classroom are provided with
  supplemental aids and services needed to benefit
  from participation in the regular education
  classroom

5
BACKGROUND

• Extensive Discovery
• Settlement discussions in 1999 and 2001
• Discovery Ends May 2003
• Motions for summary judgment July 2003
• Oral Arguments March 2004

6
BACKGROUND

• Agreement to once again engage in settlement
  talks
• Assistance of Judge Bechtle, a former federal
  judge, as mediator
• July mid December negotiations
• December 21, 2004 Provisional Settlement Agreement

7
BACKGROUND

• RELIEF SOUGHT IN COMPLAINT
• In addition to relief described in settlement,
  plaintiffs sought --
• Overall retraining of all teachers
• Complete restructuring of Teacher Preparation
• Inclusion outcome targets requiring specific
  percentage of students to be included in regular
  education classroom
• Consent Decree providing for continued court
  oversight

8
THE SETTLEMENT

• PDE agrees to a series of undertakings involving
  training, monitoring, and compliance that
  collectively will ensure that local school
  districts provide supplementary aids and services
  to students with disabilities in regular
  education classrooms and have the necessary
  capacity

9
THE RESULTS

• The result will be
• a seamless system in which school districts are
  informed of their responsibility to develop the
  staff skills needed to fulfill their
  responsibilities

10
MUTUAL GOALS

• PA school districts educate and welcome all
  children with special needs.

11
MUTUAL GOALS

• IDEIA and Oberti require special education
  students to be educated with non-disabled
  students to the maximum extent appropriate

12
MUTUAL GOALS

• Desirable that schools increase their capacity to
  provide appropriate specially designed
  instruction, related services, supplementary
  aids, services and support to special education
  students placed in regular education classrooms

13
MUTUAL GOALS

• Supplementary aids services
• available across the Commonwealth to all who need
  supplementary aids and services
• designed for meaningful education benefit
• provided in a manner sensitive to avoid
  stigmatizing

14
POLICY

• Continue to adhere to IDEIA and Oberti
• Students not to be removed from regular education
  classroom because of severity
• When needed, provide supplementary services
• IEP teams determine whether goals can be
  implemented in regular education class with
  supplementary aids and services before
  considering removal

15
POLICY

• Consider full range of supplemental aids and
  services, before contemplating removal
• Interagency coordination via current MOU with
  other state agencies
• Single Plan
• Gifted
• Chapter 15
• Information on supplementary aids and services
• Design and distribute materials for local display
  Make it clear All children are welcome!

16
ADVISORY PANEL

• Special Advisory group to Bureau Director
• Review system wide progress
• Analyze and report
• Advise PDE on implementation

17
ADVISORY PANEL

• 15 members 9 are parents
• 12 selected by plaintiffs
• 3 selected by Bureau Director
• Representative of special education population
• Initial meeting within 90 days of receipt of
  names

18
IEP FORMAT

• Continue annotated IEP format
• Modify LRE portion by December 31, 2005
• Specific guidance to districts related to
  completing the LRE portion of the IEP

19
COMPLIANCE MONITORING

• Continue cyclical monitoring
• Continue Targeted monitoring
• Develop and implement LRE specific monitoring and
  implement by January 1, 2006

20
DATA ANALYSIS MONITORING

• Annual review of data
• LRE index score using data to identify districts
  for LRE monitoring

21
COMPLIANCE MONITORING

• 5 Tier Process using data and verifiable
  information to identify districts for LRE
  specific monitoring
• Tier I 20 districts
• Tier II warning - bottom 10
• Tier III alert bottom 50
• Targeted referral
• Regular cyclical current six year approved cycle

22
SANCTIONS

• A district that fails to honor the commitments
• and obligations contained in a Corrective
• Action Plan (CAP) is subject to the following
• a mandatory meeting with PDE
• appropriate sanctions set forth in the BEC on
• enforcement, including the withholding of
  funds
• if appropriate, the initiation of professional
• disciplinary action

23
COMPLAINTS

• PDE will implement new policy related to
  complaint investigations as follows
• PDE will not resolve parent complaints without
  using best efforts
• to interview parents and reasonable number of
  people, identified by parents, with actual
  knowledge

24
COMPLAINTS

• When process results in finding of
• violation
• During next compliance monitoring, PDE will
  verify continued compliance
• For student and similarly situated students

25
PLAN APPROVAL

• Corrective action meeting may include customized
  TA Plans
• Synchronize planning with monitoring cycle

26
TRAINING

• On-Site TA and professional development
• To build local capacity
• Based on needs assessment
• Research based
• Advisory panel reviews of existing programs and
  recommendations for replication

27
TRAINING - Components

• Focus on supplemental aids and services in
  regular education classes
• Specialized interventions
• Customized TA plans
• Joint training for staff and families
• On-site training TA and consultation
• Resources available website and materials

28
TRAINING

• Mini grants
• Based on assessment
• Collaboration with higher education to build
  local capacity
• Effective advocacy for children and families

29
ADVOCACY

• Plaintiffs may prepare grant proposal
• PDE reviews proposal
• PDE supports or notifies plaintiff of rationale
  for non-support

30
TIMELINE

• Effective when court enters order dismissing
  action
• Remains effective until 5th anniversary of court
  order dismissing action

31
Questions?