Taping the IEP Meeting Goes Sour, or Reason #6048383 That SpEd Parents Go Ballistic

An inadvertent tape recording of school officials discussing a student revealed the officials' contempt for the student and her family.  School officials retaliated by instigating a felony investigation of the parents, even though the parents' advocate,  not the parents, was responsible for the taping.  The whole affair set off a ruckus in Wichita Falls, Texas.

Full story below the fold.

Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings can be stressful for both parents and the school personnel involved (just ask Dick Dalton, who sits on both sides of the table, and has a whole category on his blog about the process).

It can be valuable to tape-record the IEP meeting, as Wrightslaw has pointed out here and here; it is also addressed at ConcordSpEdPAC.  In this case, the parents' advocate, David Beinke, had permission from both the district and the parents to tape the meeting.

In Texas, IEP meetings are called ARD, (for Admission, Review, and Dismissal to Special Education).

Martha and Harris Pink have a child who is a student at Rider High School in  the Wichita Falls Independent School District.  Prior to their daughter's enrollment at Rider, the Pinks were happy with services provided their daughter in the district:

They had an extremely positive working relationship with Barwise Principal Linda Muehlberger when her child, who is now a high school freshman, attended Barwise.

"There are some great people in this district," Pink said. "I'm not doing this because I am against the district."

Problems began in the spring of Miss Pink's 8th grade year, with transition planning from Barwise (enrollment about 580) to Rider (enrollment about 1800).  The Pinks did not seem to agree with the programming and services provided by Rider.

Among other things,  Peggy Rogers, the chair of the department of Special Education at Rider High School, and one of the voices on the lunch-time tape,  told Martha Pink:

Rogers told her recently that there were no problems at Rider "but you have problems at home," she told Pink.

In other words, Rogers blamed poor parenting for Miss Pink's school problems.

An ARD meeting was called  on Nov. 30, 2006.  At issue, among other things,  appears to be the recommendations made Miss Rider's clinical psychologist that Miss Pink  be allowed manage her anxiety by  leaving the general education setting for a more secluded area at will, which Rider officials refused to honor.

Participants in the meeting were Rider officials Nat Lunn, (Principal)  Peggy Rogers, (Chairman of the Special Education department and an educational diagnostician) and Ms. Michelle Ballard,  (Special Education teacher); Mr and Mrs. Pink, and the Pink's advocate, David Beinke.  The meeting was taped, with permission of all participants, by David Beike.

Beinke and the Pinks left the room for a lunch break, while the Rider officials stayed in the room.  Evidently Beinke's tape recorder was left running (or was voice activated).  The officials were caught on tape saying such things as:

"I don't care what Dr. [the student's psychologist] says. She's a quack."

"They been doctor shopping."

"Stall them. Don't take their calls. Send them letters and put them off."

"If my child had talked to the high school principal that way, I would have slapped her in front of all of us."

"They can say this crap, but she no more has this (condition) than I do. I would like to see the testing on her."

The officials' comments weren't discovered until  January 7 , 2007, when Bienke provided the Pinks with a copy of the tape.   The Pinks promptly filed a  complaint with the Texas Education Agency and a grievance with the district against Nunn, Rogers, and Ballard.   On  January 12, 2007, they met with WFISD Superintendant Dr. Dawson Orr to file the grievance and to play the tape for him.  The grievance asked for the following remedies:

1. The suspension, termination, or placement on administrative leave of the three employees,
2. Providing new and trained teachers and a counselor to work with Miss Pink,
3. Placement in resource math,
4. Full use of the perma pass as needed to go to content mastery,
5. To follow all recommendations from [Miss Pink's psychologist]
6. To provide independent outside training for all teachers and parents to implement the program,
7. To provide a safe place free from tension and abusive remarks and actions,
8. To be reimbursed for all expenses due to actions of WFISD,
9. To bring in outside assistance with knowledge of [Miss Pink's specific psychoeducational condition] to write IEP goals and objectives, and
10. To send a teacher to the home to help Miss Pink complete past work.

Dr. Orr granted some, but not all,  of the remedies in a letter dated January 31, 2007, and went on to write:

Some of the remarks made by [Nunn, Rogers, and Ballard] were inappropriate and regrettable. However, they were made in what they had every right to believe was a private conversation during a recess of the ARD meeting. The district’s legal counsel believes that the recording made by a person not a party to the conversation nor with the consent of a party, was illegally made. The district’s legal counsel had advised me that an unlawful recording of a conversation, or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception, is a violation of the Texas Penal Code that may also result in civil liability.

Alarmed, the Pinks contacted their attorney, who laid their fears to rest:  all participants had been informed that the meeting was being recorded and that such educational meetings can be recorded start to finish.

On February 7, 2007, Peggy Rogers and  Michelle Ballard went to the Wichita Falls Police Department to  file a complaint,  alleging that   they had been recorded without their consent or knowledge.

The case was assigned to investigators at the police department. On Feb. 15, police Detective Tony Ramirez visited Harris Pink's office, according to Pink, and read him his rights. He "informed me that I was being investigated for criminal charges of illegal recording on Nov. 30, 2006, in an IEP meeting."

Ramirez also contacted mediator David Beinke on Feb. 16, according to Pink's documented record of events from Nov. 30, 2006, until the present. Beinke explained to Ramirez that he owned the recorder and was the one who recorded the conversations in the IEP meeting.

Harris Pink alleges that Ramirez told Beinke that the complainants weren't interested in Beinke's participation, but that they were "after"  Mr. and Mrs. Pink.

The Pinks then went to the school board to press their grievance, which included the remedy of disciplinary action against Nunn, Rogers, and Ballard. The Pinks noticed that the school board's meetings were improperly posted, which lead to the last-minute cancellation of the April 16, 2007 school board meeting.  The cancellation lead to the local paper covering the Pinks' grievance and the taping.

The school board meeting was rescheduled for April 23rd, with the Pinks' grievance on the agenda and time scheduled for the public to speak.  The grievance was denied.

"The board had a unanimous vote to uphold the Level II administrative decision," WFISD Public Information Officer Renae Murphy said, "and per advice of legal counsel, did not consider the recording."

The public forum drew 10 speakers, all on the same topic. Nine of the 10 spoke in support of the Rider High School educators, while one parent - Sheila Barrett - strongly expressed concerns about what she called a "different" and "disturbing" story. Barrett talked about "unprofessional behavior" by certain special education staff.

Sources

April 17, 2007: Board Meeting Cancelled over District's failure to properly post agenda--this story contains some of the information, and details how WFISD attempted to intimidate the Pinks.

April 18, 2007: Story--Paper is filing freedom of information act request on SD

April 19, 2007: Additional Parents of Special Education Students Come Forward With Complaints About Rider High School

One parent said that parents of special needs children are accepted in WFISD schools as long as they don't disagree with the treatment plan presented by the school or ask for anything extra. But assert any idea of your own and that's when the problems start, she said.

After transferring her son to the Burkburnett ISD, one mother said she found "so many parents who transferred in to get out of WFISD," she said. "There are tons of military who requested a transfer out of state to just get their kids away. There are more 'cases' and kids than you know."

April 19, 2007 Editorial Opinion

Our Opinions: Response from WFISD not sufficient

April 24, 2007 Article: School Board Rejects Pinks' Petition

Letters to the Editor, April 24, 2007:

Sample:

For the past several days, all I have heard from TRN is one-sided "bashing" of the WFISD and teachers that I know are superb and caring of their students. Publishing a non-permissive recorded conversation is unforgivable and, I am not sure, maybe even illegal.

Letters to the Editor, April 25, 2007

Sample:

First of all, Times Record News, do you not require your journalists to get BOTH sides of the story? Are they not supposed to be objective? As far as I know no one from your paper has contacted any of the three employees at Rider High School who were named in the three articles last week. Don’t you think that should be a priority? Or, is Ms. Work just in the business of bashing the school district and their employees? She must be, since she gladly printed their names but not the names of the other families that supposedly had dealings with the Special Education Department.

April 26: Interview with Peggy Rider,

Rider High School diagnostician Peggy Rogers said in her 20 years of teaching, she has never had a day when she dreaded coming to work - until last week.

For days, negative publicity swirled around the cluster of Rider's four special education offices after one student's parents aired a grievance with the Times Record News about their child's care at Rider.

"Last week, I didn't even want to live," Rogers confided as she sat at her desk in the small, cramped office. "After struggling and fighting and fighting and fighting and fighting and fighting for the kid...."

Her voice trailed off.

April 26, 2007: Column

Perhaps it's time to step back and take a big picture look at Texas special education. Why do children struggle in some settings and thrive in others? What can districts learn from each other about effective, cooperative communication between parents and educators?

How can we help every child grow up to be the best they can be?

Comments

[Reg]

Just one tiny sample of widespread problems parents encounter when they have the nerve to advocate for their child.

[Charles Fox]

The remarkable thing is that the police will even consider getting involved in a matter such as this. At worst it is an exercise in bad judgment but not the makings of criminal intent. It is so irksome that the police will readily intervene and push back on parents but are quite reluctant to come to the aid of parents or children when physical violence occurs from staff to child except when it is of a sexual nature and then only with clear evidence.

School personnel have no right to complain about parents not trusting them when they will resort to such retaliation. Moreover, the shortsightness of these actions have ramifications beyond this case and even beyond this school district that these officials simply do not take stock of which is most unfortunate

[Liz Ditz]

How parents with issues are viewed by schools

1 parent with an issue = A nutjob, thinks the school
2 parents with the same issue = A nutjob and a friend
3 parents with the same issue = A trio of troublemakers
5 parents with the same issue = “Let’s have a meeting”
10 parents with the same issue = “We’d better listen”
25 parents with the same issue = “Our dear friends”
50 parents with the same issue = A powerful organization

[Dick Dalton]

Wow. This whole deal is a lesson in how NOT to engender trust between a school and parent.

First off, the school employees making such stupid remarks. They basically cast judgement upon themselves for being insensitive clods. They have to go after the idea of an illegal taping because what they said was just so outlandish and cruel.

By going public, the parents sort of gave up their biggest bargaining chip. They demanded the firing of a bunch of employees which pretty much forced the system to circle the wagons. Now these parents can get services but no service provider is going to get too close or involved because of fear. Anyone who is fully qualified and trained won't want to put their neck on the block. Not that I blame the parents for their anger. I pretty much assume that the district thinks we're nutcases like Mr. Fox pointed out. It's what makes my job so secure; the last thing they want is a motivated parent with knowledge and time on his hands!

dick