During the fall semester of 2004,
law students in the Juvenile and Special
Education Law Clinic worked diligently
on special education matters, representing
children with unmet special education
needs, many of whom are involved
in the delinquency or the adult criminal
system. Each student had a minimum
of two cases assigned, with some advocating
on behalf of as many as five or
six children. Ethan Wolf prepared
documents for a case pending in the
federal District Court for the District of
Columbia. Mr. Wolf also appeared in
that court representing a client who is
incarcerated in a state prison in
Maryland and who is attempting
to enforce an agreement with
the D.C. Public Schools on special
education and related services.
On behalf of
a client who is
incarcerated in a
federal prison,
John Irving had
a special education
due process
hearing against
D.C.P.S. Mr. Irving
served the
hearing request
also on the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
but, claiming that the D.C.P.S. Student
Hearing Office lacked jurisdiction
over them, B.O.P declined to participate. Liz Eckhardt and Sara Hussain
represented a child with unmet
special education needs who is facing a criminal charge for drug possession
in school. They won a disciplinary
hearing and then began a special education
hearing for that client. On behalf
of her client, a young teenager in
a special education school, Patricia
Romulus found services that the client
can use as part of
his "compensatory
education" award
from a previous
special education
hearing. Michele
DeMao also lined
up services for her
clients. Debbie
Anderson developed
settlement
proposals on behalf of two siblings
with compensatory education rights to
special education services and who are
facing sanctions in criminal cases.
Victoria Kunkoski developed legal
theories for a client who is facing
criminal charges in both D.C. and
Maryland and who, as a result of traumatic brain injury, is in need of
special education services. Jorge
Villavicencio attempted to get his
client vocational services through
the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
In the spring semester of
2005, each law student in the clinic
who is working with Professor
Tulman is advocating on behalf of
individual children. Each law student
is responsible for at least two
and at most six children. In addition,
each student working with
Professor Tulman is assigned to
one of two federal lawsuits, each
of which is on behalf of a young
person with unmet special education
needs who is incarcerated in
the adult criminal system. As to
their individual casework, the
following is a sampling of the
law students’ work: Donald
Park is handling evaluation requests,
extended school year determinations,
and IEP meetings
for six siblings.
Todd Burns is
helping a client
to change her
school placement.
Erica Veazey is arranging
special education services
for two young people who are in the adult
criminal system. Andrew Sowell
has won a disciplinary hearing and
is demanding evaluations and services
for clients. Megan Allburn
is attempting to get an inclusion
placement for a client with great
artistic talent who has been denied
a free appropriate public education.
Zoe Payne is helping to get
afterschool services for a
child in a private special
education school and attempting
to find a new
school for a child who is
not making academic progress
currently. Cynthia
Catlett is designing a compensatory
education program for a client who
will soon be released
from prison, and Ms.
Catlett is also helping
a client assert his
rights to special education
and related
services against the
Federal Bureau of
Prisons. Sunny
Eaton has appeared
in court in the context
of a criminal
case to advocate for
her client. She has
also gone to a special
education hearing,
obtaining for her client
re-admission to
school and a settlement
with D.C. Public
Schools for two
and a half years of
compensatory education.
Professor Joe Tulman has continued
to speak at conferences and training
sessions around the country. In December,
he consulted with advocates in Lou-isiana
regarding how to reverse the
"school-to-prison pipeline" in that state.
In January, he spoke at a state-wide training
in Mississippi on how to use special
education advocacy on behalf of children
in the delinquency system, and, under the
auspices of the National Association of
Protection and Advocacy Systems
(NAPAS), he also was on the faculty for a
three-day special education training of
advocates from around the country who
work in Protection and Advocacy systems
for people with disabilities.
Also in January, Tulman participated
in a day-long meeting in New York on
reversing the "school-to-prison
pipeline" with colleagues from,
among other organizations, the
Harvard Civil Rights Project,
the NAACP-Legal Defense
Fund, and the Southern Poverty
Law Center. In February, Tulman
participated in a day-long
meeting sponsored by the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education Systems
and NAPAS to address the problem of
children with special education needs
disproportionately entering the delinquency
system. In March, Tulman addressed
a nationwide audience of state
delinquency and neglect system directors
in an on-line and telephonic conference
call training on special education
rights of children who are incarcerated.
In April, Professor Tulman addressed an
audience of 250 probation officers,
school personnel, and non-profit provider
staffpersons at a conference in Suffolk
County on Long Island, NY. Also
in April, Tulman was the keynote
speaker in Los Angeles at a statewide
gathering of approximately 150 California
public defenders who represent children.
A number of clients represented by
the clinic are about to graduate from
high school in June. Two of these clients
will no longer be protected under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). In order to prevent a lapse in services,
Tiese Crawford and Sarah Shah filed complaints with
the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings
against Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA). In addition to seeking
funding for specific educational, vocational
and independent living-related
services, both clients seek declaratory
relief. RSA maintains that it is not required
to provide direct services to special
education students while enrolled
and attending a D.C. Public School. The
complaints contend the statute and legislative
history mandate RSA to provide
direct services to eligible clients simultaneous
to receiving special education services
while in school. Both cases should
go to hearing before June 2005.
|
|
