Klein ISD takes mother to court over evaluation request
Klein ISD mother Angela Harris, left, was surprised to find out her school district was taking her to court in an attempt to validate some tests they ran on her son, Marshall Harris, right, 12, who has a disability.
Steve Campbell: Chronicle
Sept. 17, 2007, 8:44 AM
Klein ISD takes mother to court over evaluation request
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
Angela Harris acknowledges her relationship with the Klein school district is tumultuous. She's been fighting for years to get extra help for her 12-year-old son, who has special needs.
Still, she was stunned when she learned earlier this year that the northwest Harris County district was suing her.
Rather than pay for the independent evaluation that Harris requested, the district took her to "due process," a legal proceeding used to resolve special-education disputes.
"It's a very uncomfortable situation and it is not a cost-efficient way of doing things," said Harris, whose son, Marshall, was born with a type of brain injury called periventricular leukomalacia. "Klein has abused their authority to oversee tax dollars."
District spokeswoman Liz Johnson said the matter cost about $20,000 to $25,000 in legal fees. On top of that, the state spent roughly $13,000 to provide a judge and court reporter for the two-day proceeding, Texas Education Agency officials said.
A lawyer for the district estimated that it would cost a fraction of that — between $500 to $1,500 — to perform the test the mother requested.
While these cases are rare — 23 of last year's 341 due process hearings in Texas were filed by school districts — parents and advocates fear that districts may increasingly opt to take parents to court to intimidate them, and others, from insisting on the services they believe their children need.
Feeling overmatched
It's another frustrating roadblock for parents of Texas' estimated 500,000 special-education students, said Louis Geigerman, a Houston-area advocate for special-education students. Parents in such situations, he said, often find themselves overmatched by school districts' high-priced attorneys.
"They would rather litigate than provide services. That's the theme," Geigerman said. "They need to look at a cost-benefit analysis when they want to litigate, for $20,000 or $40,000, something that would cost less than $5,000."
Jeff Rogers, a partner with Feldman & Rogers, the law firm representing Klein in this case, argued that the real issue is what's best for Marshall Harris.
While Rogers and Klein school officials couldn't discuss details of Harris' case, they questioned whether it was beneficial for a child to undergo more than 20 tests over six years. The district already had conducted several tests on the boy and concluded that its employees were qualified to decipher the results, Rogers said.
"Sometimes a line has to be drawn in the sand over what the professionals believe is best for the student," he said.
After Harris received notice that her school district was suing her, she withdrew her request for the test, deciding she'd rather pay for it herself than pay for attorney fees.
She asked district officials to drop the case, but they refused, leaving her to represent herself. Feeling overwhelmed, she said, she sought legal advice from area nonprofit and advocacy groups. She was frustrated to find that no one could help her.
Harris learned last week that Klein won its case.
In the ruling, hearing officer Sharon Ramage wrote: "It would appear ... that the district agreed to an excessive number of evaluations at the request of the parent."
Still, the ruling doesn't stop Harris from asking that the district test her son regarding other issues, which Geigerman says makes Klein's legal challenge seem even more wasteful.
Extra tutoring
Harris' troubles with the district started when her son brought home straight F's in the first grade. Despite her pleas, she said, the district was slow to offer extra help.
After Harris filed a complaint with the Texas Education Agency, Klein was ordered to provide Marshall more than 50 hours of extra tutoring for writing. He is still struggling in class and on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, however, which prompted Harris to request another round of tests.
"The law tells you you're entitled to different things, but no one tells you what to do when it doesn't happen," Harris said. "I never thought advocacy could end me up in due process."
While federal law entitles parents to independent educational evaluations, often at public expense, districts can challenge requests in due-process hearings. Klein filed its case to establish that its in-house evaluations were adequate.
"In the strict economic sense, it's usually more economical to simply grant the (evaluation) request, which is why the overwhelming majority of these are approved," Rogers said. "I know, from an objective point of view, it seems heavy-handed at times. But once you become more informed about the totality of it, it becomes a lot more balanced than it might appear."
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Klein ISD takes mother to court over evaluation request
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
Angela Harris acknowledges her relationship with the Klein school district is tumultuous. She's been fighting for years to get extra help for her 12-year-old son, who has special needs.
Still, she was stunned when she learned earlier this year that the northwest Harris County district was suing her.
Rather than pay for the independent evaluation that Harris requested, the district took her to "due process," a legal proceeding used to resolve special-education disputes.
"It's a very uncomfortable situation and it is not a cost-efficient way of doing things," said Harris, whose son, Marshall, was born with a type of brain injury called periventricular leukomalacia. "Klein has abused their authority to oversee tax dollars."
District spokeswoman Liz Johnson said the matter cost about $20,000 to $25,000 in legal fees. On top of that, the state spent roughly $13,000 to provide a judge and court reporter for the two-day proceeding, Texas Education Agency officials said.
A lawyer for the district estimated that it would cost a fraction of that — between $500 to $1,500 — to perform the test the mother requested.
While these cases are rare — 23 of last year's 341 due process hearings in Texas were filed by school districts — parents and advocates fear that districts may increasingly opt to take parents to court to intimidate them, and others, from insisting on the services they believe their children need.
Feeling overmatched
It's another frustrating roadblock for parents of Texas' estimated 500,000 special-education students, said Louis Geigerman, a Houston-area advocate for special-education students. Parents in such situations, he said, often find themselves overmatched by school districts' high-priced attorneys.
"They would rather litigate than provide services. That's the theme," Geigerman said. "They need to look at a cost-benefit analysis when they want to litigate, for $20,000 or $40,000, something that would cost less than $5,000."
Jeff Rogers, a partner with Feldman & Rogers, the law firm representing Klein in this case, argued that the real issue is what's best for Marshall Harris.
While Rogers and Klein school officials couldn't discuss details of Harris' case, they questioned whether it was beneficial for a child to undergo more than 20 tests over six years. The district already had conducted several tests on the boy and concluded that its employees were qualified to decipher the results, Rogers said.
"Sometimes a line has to be drawn in the sand over what the professionals believe is best for the student," he said.
After Harris received notice that her school district was suing her, she withdrew her request for the test, deciding she'd rather pay for it herself than pay for attorney fees.
She asked district officials to drop the case, but they refused, leaving her to represent herself. Feeling overwhelmed, she said, she sought legal advice from area nonprofit and advocacy groups. She was frustrated to find that no one could help her.
Harris learned last week that Klein won its case.
In the ruling, hearing officer Sharon Ramage wrote: "It would appear ... that the district agreed to an excessive number of evaluations at the request of the parent."
Still, the ruling doesn't stop Harris from asking that the district test her son regarding other issues, which Geigerman says makes Klein's legal challenge seem even more wasteful.
Extra tutoring
Harris' troubles with the district started when her son brought home straight F's in the first grade. Despite her pleas, she said, the district was slow to offer extra help.
After Harris filed a complaint with the Texas Education Agency, Klein was ordered to provide Marshall more than 50 hours of extra tutoring for writing. He is still struggling in class and on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, however, which prompted Harris to request another round of tests.
"The law tells you you're entitled to different things, but no one tells you what to do when it doesn't happen," Harris said. "I never thought advocacy could end me up in due process."
While federal law entitles parents to independent educational evaluations, often at public expense, districts can challenge requests in due-process hearings. Klein filed its case to establish that its in-house evaluations were adequate.
"In the strict economic sense, it's usually more economical to simply grant the (evaluation) request, which is why the overwhelming majority of these are approved," Rogers said. "I know, from an objective point of view, it seems heavy-handed at times. But once you become more informed about the totality of it, it becomes a lot more balanced than it might appear."
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
No comments:
Post a Comment