SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING

Dear Members and Friends of PEN,

The following press release was emailed last night to all of PEN's media contacts. So far, KOMO radio carried the story, and I was interviewed by The Seattle Times. (Their story should run tomorrow or the day after). Please consider making a contribution to PEN, today, so that the organization can continue representing children by empowering their parents and teachers.

PEN is able to speak with complete freedom-- perhaps the only organization in Washington State able and willing to do so-- against atrocities such as the one detailed below, because we are not funded by school districts or other government entities or special interest grants. We count on the financial support of individuals and small businesses to pay for websites, copies, postage, buttons, ink, transportation, phones, and any needed professional services. Your contribution of any amount helps us drop everything and act when we are contacted by individuals in need of our assistance.

http://www.mothersagainstwasl.org/member.html
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387

Thank you,
Juanita


Date: March 3, 2009



PRESS RELEASE- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING



Contacts: Juanita Doyon, Director, Parent Empowerment Network- 253-973-1593

Contact information for two teachers and three parents was provided to media contacts.



Two Seattle School District teachers have been suspended for ten days without pay for following legal requests from parents that their children not be tested using the Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).



“This is not another Carl Chew case where the teachers refused to test their students,” said Juanita Doyon, Director of Parent Empowerment Network (PEN). “These teachers were simply honoring parental requests, which were given verbally and later followed up in writing.”



Juli Griffith and Lenora Stahl, teachers in a self-contained, elementary, special education classroom, expressed their concerns that the WAAS portfolio system is not appropriate for their students, in November 2008, first in an email to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and then in a letter to the Seattle School District administrators. They asked that the District work with them to develop an appropriate assessment for their students who have severe disabilities and are medically fragile.



The WAAS portfolio measures students’ abilities to meet grade-level academic standards and does not measure progress for students with severe physical and cognitive disabilities who work each day to learn basic life skills such as hanging up coats, holding a spoon, attending to activities, and responding appropriately in social situations.



“I am the voice that my students do not have and I have to stand up for them. My main concern is what will happen if I refuse to administer this test to my students,” wrote Ms. Stahl to Judy Kraft, Alternative Assessment Specialist at OSPI.



No response was received from the District. An email response was received from Ms. Kraft.



Refusal on the part of the teachers became unnecessary, when parents of the six students who were to be tested told the teachers that they did not want their children tested using the WAAS system. Teachers honored the parental requests and did not begin the near year-long WAAS process. In January 2009, the teachers were informed that they were out of compliance with state and district policy, by Seattle School District administration. District administration contended parents were required to put refusal of state testing in writing. Parents subsequently wrote refusal letters to the school. After undergoing two District disciplinary hearings each, despite the fact that the District had received refusal letters from parents of all students involved, Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl received letters (see attached) on March 2, 2009, stating that they were suspended without pay for 10 days, beginning March 4, 2009. Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl have filed appeals of the suspensions with the District.



State testing policy provides that parents or students may refuse to take part in state testing. In a letter addressed by PEN to Seattle District Superintendent Marie Goodloe-Johnson, February 20, 2009 (see addendum 1, below), wording was included from the OSPI 2009 Assessment Coordinator’s Handbook, “…agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested…The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office…If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.”



Through Public Disclosure, PEN requested documents from the Seattle School District containing policies regarding parental refusal of testing and requirements for teacher, parents, and administrators. On March 2, 2009, PEN received an email from Joy A. Stevens, Sr. Legal Assistant/Public Records Officer for the District, stating, “…I have begun the process of locating and gathering the documents you have requested. I anticipate being able to give you a response on or before March 30, 2009.”



Parents involved are extremely upset that Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl are being punished for decisions made by parents and that the teachers who know the needs of their children will not be in the special education classroom for the next two weeks. “This will be a total waste of time for my son. He will learn nothing during these two weeks,” said parent Rachel McKean.



Special requirements for the appropriate care and teaching of the students in question will make it highly unlikely that the District will be able to provide appropriate substitute teachers, particularly under constraints of a two day notice.



Teachers and parents plan to file separate complaints with the Office of Civil Rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination or retaliation against individuals who advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities (see addendum 2, below). “In the next two weeks, PEN will assist parents and teachers in taking appropriate legal action against the Seattle School District and, possibly, the OSPI,” stated Juanita Doyon.





Parent Empowerment Network is a statewide, nonprofit organization. The mission of PEN is to provide education and peer training to parents, teachers, and community members at-large, in developing strategies to promote sound policy for quality public schools.





Addendum 1



Parent Empowerment Network

PO Box 494

Spanaway, WA 98387



February 20, 2009



Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson

Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165



Dear Dr. Goodloe-Johnson:



Parent Empowerment Network (PEN) has been informed by parents and teachers that the Seattle School District is failing to honor the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to take part in the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and/or Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).



The right of parents to opt their children out of the state assessment system has been well-established. State policy is affirmed in the official WASL Coordinator’s Manual, 2009, which states:



Federal and state laws require public schools to administer assessments to students enrolled in the specified grades and subjects, the assumption apparently being that participation on the part of the student or approval on the part of the parent would not be an issue. Because it is not specifically addressed in the legislation, agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested. The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office. It is also recommended that the parent be requested to include the reason for not wanting the child tested. If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.



PEN’s understanding of the situation in question is as follows:



· Parents of six students in special education classes at Green Lake Elementary School informed their children’s teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio Assessment during the 2008-2009 school year.



· Teachers honored the decision and the rights of the parents and did not begin the WAAS data collection process.



· School and District administrators questioned teachers regarding their failure to begin collection of WAAS-required data for opted out students.



· School and District administrators were informed by teachers that the teachers were acting on the verbal requests of parents that their children not be assessed using the WAAS.



· School and District administrators instructed teachers to incorporate current curriculum into WAAS assessment for students, thus disregarding verbal parental refusals.



· Teachers continued to honor parental refusals of WAAS.



· School and District administrators informed teachers that written requests were needed from parents in order for students to be excused from WAAS.



· School and/or District administrators did not contact parents, but instead placed responsibility for obtaining written refusal from parents solely upon teachers.



· Parents provided written refusal of assessments to school administrator.



· Seattle School District has formally informed teachers that a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not teachers should be suspended for two weeks without pay for failing to administer the WAAS to students whose parents had verbally notified teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio.



· Seattle School District alleges that teachers refused to follow written directives of their building principal to administer the WAAS.



· Teachers maintain they acted in good faith and simply honored the verbal requests made to them by parents and, upon instruction from the District, requested written refusals from parents.



· At no time did teachers act on principle based on merits/demerits of the WAAS and its appropriateness for severely disabled, medically fragile students; teachers acted on their principles in following the legal requests of parents.



The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction document, “How Students in Special Education Participate in State Testing,” provides the following policy for determining “how a student participates in the state assessment system.”



“The IEP team, which includes a student’s parents or guardians, decides which testing tool to use based on the students’ needs in each content area.”



Parents involved in the current opt out situation were acting not only in their role as guardians of their children but also as members of the students’ Individual Education Plan teams. They decided to remove their students from the assessment process because they believe that no part of the current Washington assessment system is appropriate for their children with special needs/disabilities.



As with parents of students in regular education classes who make decisions regarding their students and the WASL, parents of children with special needs/disabilities do not always agree with state and federal assessment suggestions or requirements for their students. All parents/guardians of students in Washington State Public Schools have the same right to opt their children out of the state assessment system.



Clearly, parents and their children with disabilities have rights that often go beyond those freely offered in the public school setting. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education letter to Washington State, approving the Washington Assessment System, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act, states that “approval of Washington's standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”



As an organization, PEN recommends that parents opt out their children from state testing, whether children are to be subjected to WASL or WAAS. We do so because we believe that Washington’s current assessment system fails to uphold the civil rights of students and fails to uphold the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite their right to reject the Washington assessment system for their children, parents are often coerced or even harassed by school officials until parents ultimately give in and allow the school to assess their students. In the current case, teachers simply accepted and honored the parents’ decision.



In May 2008, a Seattle School District teacher refused to administer the WASL to his 6th grade class. The action taken by Seattle School District in the case of this teacher’s refusal was to suspend the teacher for eight days without pay. The Seattle School District seems to be equating the case of Green Lake Elementary teachers complying with state policy by honoring parental refusals to the 2008 case of a teacher refusing to administer the WASL. In doing so, the Seattle School District is drawing a parallel where none exists.



In 2008, teacher Carl Chew refused to administer WASL as a matter of principle.. In 2009, teachers at Green Lake Elementary are following state policy and honoring parental refusals.



State policy requires only verbal refusal on the part of the parent or student, leaving it to “the school” to request written documentation from the parent or otherwise document refusal in writing, if the parent chooses not to comply with a request for a written refusal. Unless the Seattle School District has developed and provided a policy requiring that teachers request a written refusal from parents, PEN contends that the school building administrator or assessment coordinator holds responsibility for requesting and obtaining, or otherwise generating, written documentation of parental/student refusal of state assessments.



Regardless of school district policy, simple failure by school personnel to obtain written refusal from the parents does not warrant suspension without pay or any other penalty or record of wrongdoing in the personnel file. In the very suggestion that a two week suspension is warranted, the Seattle School District threatens the rights of the severely disabled and medically fragile students who are in the care of these teachers by potentially removing any hope of provision for a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for a period of two weeks, without due cause.



Further, PEN contends that the Seattle School District has breached parental rights and assessment protocol by directing teachers to assess students against the will and direction of parents. Because of the serious nature of this situation and the possible breach of state and federal regulations and protocols by the Seattle School District, PEN suggests that an investigation by the Puget Sound Education Service District may be in order.



Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. A hard copy of this letter will follow through US Mail service. Please see attached Public Disclosure Request.



Sincerely,



Juanita Doyon, Director

Parent Empowerment Network



cc Randy Dorn, Rob McKenna, Mary Lindquist, Doug Gill, Jeannette Bliss, Gloria Mitchell, Cheryl Grinager, Joan Bell, Alan Sutliff, Mary Bass, Sherry Carr, Cheryl Chow, Michael DeBell, Peter Maier, Harium Martin-Morris, Steve Sundquist, Jeffry Finer





February 20, 2009



Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson

Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165





Under Public Disclosure, Parent Empowerment Network requests that the Seattle School District provide:



1. Copies of all District policies regarding parental refusal of state assessments, including all policies relating to parents, teachers, building administrators, and district administrators.



2. Copies of all documents, memos, and emails regarding the dissemination of refusal policies and requirements to administrators, schools, teachers, and parents.



Thank you.



Juanita Doyon, Director

Parent Empowerment Network

253-973-1593





Addendum 2



From the Americans with Disabilities Act

Sec.36.206 Retaliation or coercion.

(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.

(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.

(c) Illustrations of conduct prohibited by this section include, but are not limited to:

(1) Coercing an individual to deny or limit the benefits, services, or advantages to which he or she is entitled under the Act or this part;

(2) Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation;

(3) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is assisting or encouraging an individual or group entitled to claim the rights granted or protected by the Act or this part to exercise those rights; or

(4) Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act or this part.