|
Janice Cheeks, ‘05, also successfully
filed and processed a complaint
against DCPS for its failure to adequately
evaluate one of her clients. She
was able to persuade an extremely
busy and reluctant expert neuropsychologist
witness to appear in person
for the hearing. On the day of the
hearing, DCPS not only agreed to fund
an independent neuropsychological
evaluation but also admitted through
its attorney that the 2003-2004 charter
school placement was inappropriate.
On behalf of another young adult
client identified as a gifted artist who
happens to have Down’s Syndrome,
Janice contacted and shared his portfolio
work with personnel at the Corcoran
College of Art & Design. DCPS
has repeatedly refused to fund full-time
combined academic and arts programming
for this client. In her efforts
to tap financial resources from other
legally obligated agencies, Janice
helped file an application for RSA services
and made vigorous attempts to
get MRDDA to fund the Corcoran
summer program. Although MRDDA
refused to provide funding based on its
position that "case management" services
is all it is obligated to provide this client at this time,
Janice’s work lays sufficient
foundation for the
next student advocate to file a
complaint against both MRDDA and RSA.
Nina Dang, ‘05, and
Caru Echenique, ‘05, filed complaints
on behalf of separate clients
and, as a resultof their zealous
efforts to identify
and negotiate
new school placements,
DCPS agreed on the day
of the special education
due process hearings to place
and fund both clients
at new school placements.
Caru’s client was
sitting at home receiving
no services at the time the
complaint was filed. Nina’s client
was in a therapeutic setting but not
receiving any educational services
as part of that program. Additionally,
during the hearings, Nina and
Caru argued and persuaded the
hearing officers to order DCPS to
compensate both clients for services
it failed to provide by funding
tutoring and related services
beyond what was specified in the
clients’ Individualized Educational
Plans (IEPs). Nina’s client received
additional academic instruction
and speech therapy while
in the residential facility. Caru
secured academic tutoring services
at the client’s home which should
carry into the 2004-2005 school year.
Caru and Nina also took extraordinary
measures on behalf of
their other clients. As a result of
receiving failing grades during the
fall semester of his senior year in
2003, Nina’s second client was
deemed ineligible for a previously
awarded scholarship for higher
education from a private organization
in the District. Nina was happy to learn that as a result of the client’s
efforts to improve his grades, coupled with
her initiative to write, send and follow up
on a letter requesting reconsideration of the
organization’s decision, The Fishing
School, under the direction of Mr. Emery
McIver, reinstated the
scholarship! Finally, Caru’s second client has
unique artistic talent. For
the poster she designed
and entered into the 2004
Annual D.C. Metro Transit
Authority Contest, this
client was the recipient of
the first place merit award
in the D.C. citywide
eighth grade category.
Based on the client’s artistic
interests, Caru identified
and negotiated a fully
funded placement in the
D.C. Building Museum’s competitive summer art’s program. It’s
probable these accomplishments and opportunities
would not have occurred had
Caru not made oral and written challenges
to the principal’s decision to suspend this
client from her local neighborhood school
in early February 2004, despite the school’s
multidisciplinary team’s opinion that no
such suspension should take place. What a
difference these student lawyers made in
the lives of their clients. Bravo! Job well
done!
More Juvenile & Special Education Law Clinic News on the next page...
|
