Calder-Green / Orange County Schools suit settlement

Though we already ran a story on the subject, Orange County Schools spokesman Michael Gilbert today released a written statement on the matter:

The Orange County Board of Education has agreed to settle the case of Laurie Calder-Green and Emily Roberts v. the Orange County Board of Education, et al.  The Board and the individual defendants emphatically deny any wrongdoing.  However, considering the turmoil this matter has already caused in the school system and the further disruption that a trial would potentially create plus the time away from full attention to their school responsibilities a trial would require of staff, the Board determined that a settlement served the best interest of the school system, especially the students and staff of Cedar Ridge High School.  This settlement, funded in significant part by the Board’s liability carrier, will allow the Board and district personnel to dedicate their time and energy to their primary goal of educating students.

Terms of the settlement include the following:

--Ms. Calder-Green, Ms. Roberts and their attorney will receive $93,000 divided as follows:

$10,000 to Emily Roberts, a portion of which will be subject to tax withholding.

$50,770 to Laurie Calder-Green, a portion of which will be subject to tax withholding. 

$32,230 to the plaintiffs’ attorney. 

--Ms. Calder-Green and Ms. Roberts waive all claims against the school board and its employees.

--Ms. Calder-Green agreed to resign her employment with the school system no later than June 30, 2011.   In compliance with this settlement requirement, Ms. Calder-Green has already resigned as of January 21, 2011 and is no longer employed by Orange County Schools.

--Ms. Calder-Green and Ms. Roberts will not seek employment in the Orange County Schools in the future.

The Board and the individual defendants elected to settle this matter for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense and disruption of litigation to the school system at a time when the system is facing unprecedented budgetary challenges that require focused leadership.

 

hodgepodge

A couple of things.

As promised, here is the link to the OMM decision. It's a Google document, so hopefully no one will have problems opening it. It's not too long, only about 40 pages.

But, school is now back in session, so there's a ton going on.
• The eco classroom group is meeting again this week, after a summer hiatus.
• Project House is going to be a bit different this year.
• I'll be at Last Fridays, taking pictures.
• Since the budget wasn't quite as terrible as the state had been telling everyone, some former OCS employees have been rehired.
• The schools are ready for flu season.

As always, there may be more, and I'm always glad to get out into the schools and cover events going on there, from retirement parties to interesting classroom activities. But I can't be there if I don't know about them, so drop me a like (v.shortley (at) newsoforange.com) or give me a ring.

status of OMM appeal

Nicole McWhirter posted on her blog her son was the "prevailing party" in the appeal. What that means, she says, is really unclear to her. I guess only time will tell.

I'm in the midst of reading the appeal, so I may have more later. There will certainly be an article in this week's (Aug. 26) paper.

on appeal

According to Nicole McWhirter's blog, written arguments in the case OMM v. OCS (shortened) are due to the state review officer tomorrow, with a decision due by Aug. 19.

omm case: statements from ocs, mcwhirters, autism society of nc

Here are the statements from various parties involved (or not, as the case may be) in the case OMM v. Orange County Schools.

Orange County Schools, via attorney Rachel B. Hitch with Schwartz & Shaw. Click on each page to get a larger view.


















































Here is the statement from the McWhirters:

On Friday, we had a very productive IEP meeting with representatives of the Orange County Public Schools. We unanimously agreed upon extended year service plan for Owen. I am disheartended and dissapointed at the County's release of a press statement. We were moving forward, appeal or not, communicating well, and focusing on what was important: Owen's education.
It is important to note that regardless of what the county wants the public to focus on, which is the much controversial issue of "appropriate" vs best" this case was about a whole lot more, including substantive deprivations of federal rights. Contrary to the County's claim that the proposed IEP was developed by the team, the County admitted in testimony and the Judge clearly found as fact that the IEP was delegated to non-team members outside of the room. On page 39 of her final decision, Judge
Lassiter writes, “In doing so here, Respondent violated that procedural requirement of the IDEA. The procedural violation was not a "technical failure" and it was neither trivial nor inconsequential. Because of Respondent's improper delegation of decision making authority over OMM's services and placement. NM and AM were deprived of their rightto participate meaningfully in the decision-making process with respect to OMM s IEP placement and services.” The county denied our son a free and appropriate public education, and the judge ruled that we are entitled to equitable remedies.
To prevail in its appeal the County will have to overturn five separate rulings made by Judge Lassiter in her decision. While the County has every right to appeal, we think that there are better ways to spend taxpayer money then this.

Here's an e-mail I received from Scott Badesch, CEO of the Autism Society of North Carolina, responding to the use of a quote from one of their staffers in the OCS release:

1. The Autism Society of North Carolina’s staff person quoted in the New and Observer article is a parent advocate who informed us that she was not responding to the case mentioned in the article, but rather about the legal responsibility of Public School Systems when it comes to providing education for people living with a developmental disability.
2. The Autism Society of North Carolina does know about the case mentioned in the article and fully supports the rights of a parent to advocate fully for assuring that his or her child is provided all rights that he or she is allowed under the law. In the case you mentioned, the issue has more to do, we are told, with due process of law than about defining appropriate.
3. Unfortunately, the Orange County School District chose to use a quote of an Autism Society of North Carolina staff member to appear to justify its position. We feel that might imply our approval of the actions that the School District is taking in this case. The Autism Society of North Carolina fully supports the rights of all parents to advocate for what their child is legally entitled to and to the right of due process in seeking an appropriate education for their child.
4. This case is more about the civil rights that a person living with autism is allowed under the law. Just as the right of appeal is allowed under law, so is the right to due process and the right for an appropriate education for a child living with autism.

statement from district's lawyers

UPDATE (1:17 p.m.):
I just got off the phone with Rachel Hitch, of Schwartz & Shaw in Raleigh, the district's law firm. That firm, she said, does exclusively education law, and Ms. Hitch deals mostly with special education law. She was out of the office all day yesterday, and said she wanted to make sure she was responsive to my questions.
She explained to me a little bit more how the appeals process would work in this state, since it's completely different than the state I spent most of my time in (New Jersey), which, like most of the Northeast, sees many more special education cases tried each year.
I asked her what the grounds for the appeal are, and she said since no appeals brief has yet been filed, she would rather not discuss that at this point.
She said the appeals process works something like this:
"The process in North Carolina is a two-tiered process," she said. "What happens is the first step is a parent files with the Office of Administrative Hearing. ... And that's the decision that we have."
If either party disagrees with the decision, it can be appealed within 30 days to a state review officer. It's what she called a "paper appeal," meaning there wouldn't be anymore hearings at this stage. The state review officer then decides when any additional materials need to be filed.
"The next step from there would be to make its way to the traditional court system, if anyone's interested to take it any further," she said.

Well, that's that. I'll post it as I get anything further.

_____________

Here's the statement from one of Orange County Schools' lawyers, Rachel Hitch, on the case OMM, by parent or guardian N.M. and A.M. v. Orange County Board of Education in full (minus the "FOR PUBLIC RELEASE" header):

A recent ruling by an Administrative Law Judge in the Office of Administrative Hearings has received attention from some members of the Orange County community. Most importantly, school officials want to emphasize that that the student who was the subject of the decision remains a part of the Orange County community. The well-being of students is the primary concern of the Orange County Schools and school officials hope that all concerned persons keep this student’s interests in mind.
The school system disagrees with some of the statements being made about the decision and the events leading up to its issuance. The Board of Education has voted to appeal the decision. In any event, Federal and State laws protect the confidentiality of student information and school employee personnel files. Those laws limit how much information can be publicly disclosed by the school system. In addition, the student’s parents were adamant about the confidentiality of the student’s information during the course of this case. Of course, the student’s parents have no restrictions on their statements about the situation as they see it. As always, there are two sides to every story. School officials are not permitted to discuss their account or impressions of this case.
In order to preserve confidentiality of student records and school personnel files as required by law, the Superintendent of Schools, Patrick Rhodes, has designated attorney Rachel Hitch to respond to any inquiries beyond this statement.

In case you haven't read the July 8 story, here it is. Here's a primer on some of the acronyms and education speak used in the article, as well.