p.j. original lawsuit

8/14/2019 P.J. original lawsuit

1/49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTCONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FORRETARDED CITIZENS, INC.THE COALITION FOR INCLUSIVEEDUCATIONCONNECTICUT COALITION OF CITIZENSWITH DISABILITIES,PEOPLE FIRST, INC.P.J . , BY AND THROUGH HISPARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS,MR. AND MRS. W.J.L.G. BY AND THROUGH HERPARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS,MR. AND MRS. L.G.M.L. BY AND THROUGH HISPARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS,MR. AND MRS. J .L . ,IAN KATZ BY AND THROUGH HISPARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, MR.AND MRS. MARK KATZPLAINTIFFS,v.STATE OF CONNECTICUT BOARDOF EDUCATIONGERALD TIROZZI, COMMISSIONERCONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION

1

CIVIL ACTION NO.291CV00180 TEC)

, ::. . .


2/49

\

WEST HARTFORD BOARD OFEDUCATIONWETHERSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATIONWINDHAM BOARD OF EDUCATIONSTAMFORD BOARD OF EDUCATIONDEFENDANTS OCTOBER 4, 1991

INTERVENING COMPLAINT OF IAN KATZANDAMENDED COMPLAINT OF ALL PLAINTIFFS

I . INTRODUCTION1. This complaint const i tu tes an appeal by Ian Katz of t

decis ion of a State Board of Education hearing off ice r pursuant2 U.S.C. 1415, and a request to intervene as a party pla int i fThe pla in t i f f s are statewide organizat ions, created by parendisabled ci t izens and professionals to enforce the r ightspersons with disabi l i t ies and children with retardation and thparents . The individual pla int i f fs have sought, unsuccessfully,obtain specia l education ins t ruc t ion in regular classrooms in thneighborhood schools. Their local boards of education have rej ecthese, and other parents requests for regular classroom placemefor the i r children with di sab i l i t i e s due, in par t to prejudicebias . In addit ion, the segregation of children with disabi l i t i


3/49


4/49

maj or i ty of Connecticut 's public schools. continued segregationchi ldren with severe disabi l i t ies in special classes and specschools wil l not ensure the provision of an appropriate educatiSegregation ensures only tha t the next generation of disabadul ts wil l not be able to work or function in society withextraordinar i ly expensive governmental intervent ion.I I JURISDICTION

2. This act ion arises under the united States Consti tutand federal laws. I t seeks declaratory and injunct ive re l i e fredress the deprivation, under color of s ta te law, of r igsecured to the pla in t i f f s by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unis t a t es Consti tut ion and federal laws. The amount in controveexceeds 50,000, exclusive of in teres t and costs .

3. Jur isdic t ion is conferred on th is court by 20 U Ssect ion 1415, 29 U.S.C. sect ion 794, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 andU.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1333.I I I PARTIES:PLAINTIFFS:

CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS INC.4. The Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens, I

4


5/49


6/49

separate classrooms for children with retardation. CARobjections to the creat ion of a separate educational system wdismissed on the theory tha t the public schools needed timelearn how to educate children with retardation.

7. Fif teen years of segregation, however, have not changthe a t t i tudes of public school administrators or created texpert i se in public schools the legis la ture hopednondisabled peers.

from th

8. A number of member parents have exhausted the due procprocedures avai lable under s ta te law, but have been unableresolve the i r differences with the i r local board of educationto the inf irmit ies in these procedures discussed in th is complaiC.A.R.C. has also made every ef for t to resolve i t s differences wthe s ta te Department of Education and the defendant, Tirozzi ,meeting with the Commissioner and his c loses t advisors, by writito the Commissioner s s ta f f and par t ic ipat ing in meetingsworkshops in an attempt to change the a t t i tudes of s ta te and looff ic ia ls

9. CARC the leading parent advocacy group in Connecticand the author of many of the laws tha t govern the education a

6


7/49

t reatment of ci t izens with retardation joins th i s lawsuitprotect the in te res ts of i t s members who are i r reparably harmthrough unnecessari ly separate educational inst ruct ion.THE COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

10. The Coali t ion for Inclusive Education for Students wDisabi l i t ie s is a coal i t ion of agencies profess ionals parentsdisabled ci t izens dedicated to ending the segregation of childwith disab i l i t i e s The Coali t ion was founded by many individuand organizat ions including the Connecticut Coalit ion of ci t izwith Disabil i t ies CCCD), the Connecticut DevelopmeDisabi l i t ie s Counsel the State of Connecticut Office of Protectand Advocacy for Persons with Disabil i t ies and the ConnectAssociation for Retarded Citizens Inc. The Coalit ion seeksintervene to protec t the in te res ts of i t s members whose childare being educated in unnecessarily separate se t t ings

11. Several member parents have children with retardationhave been deprived regular classroom placements in violat ion ofC.F.R. sect ion 300.500. A number of these member parents have uthe available administrat ive remedies to resolve the i r differenwith local school boards without success. Coali t ion representati

7


8/49

have a l so met with Commissioner Tirozzi and his c loses t advisorsan unsuccessful a t tempt to resolve t h e i r di fferences with s t aof f ic ia l s .CONNECTICUT COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES

12. The Connecticut Coal i t ion of c i t i zens with c i t i zeDi sab i l i t i e s (CCCD) i s a sta tewide grass roots organizat ion foundto advocate for the r igh ts of c i t i z e ns with d isab i l i t i e s .

13. CCCD s membership i s comprised of persons with ad i s a b i l i t i e s as wel l as f r iends and family of those c i t i z e ns wd i s a b i l i t i e s . The purpose of CCCD i s to advocate the fupa r t i c ipa t ion of a l l persons with d isab i l i t i e s by chal lenging tcondi t ions t ha t l im i t such par t ic ipa t ion .

14. Many of CCCD s members were educated in separclassrooms and separa te schools and as a r e su l t can provins ights i n to how segrega t ion a f fec t s the sense of s e l f worth operson with d i s a b i l i t i e s and his re l a t ionsh ips with non-disablpeers .

15. CCCD in te rvenes to oppose the segrega t ion of chi ldrwith d i s a b i l i t i e s and to enforce the federa l presumption t hfavors regular classroom suppor ted placements over segrega

8


9/49

placements because t bel ieves the i n t e re s t s o f ch i ld ren with awithout d isab i l i t i e s are be t t e r served by fu l l i n t eg ra t ion .PEOPLE FIRST INC:

16. People Fi r s t was organized and incorporated under tlaws of Connect icut in 1987 to serve as a vehic le for sel f-advocadevelopment .

17. People Fi r s t i s a sta tewide organizat ion of fourtecommunity and i n s t i t u t i on chapters and 350 members s tatewidPeople F i r s t s membership i s composed of people with s igni f icad i s a b i l i t i e s , including re t a rda t ion , who have been excluden t i r e l y from any educat ional opportuni ty or required to at tesegregated educat ional programs. They are in the bes t pos i t ioninform the cour t about what e f fec t segrega t ion w i l l haveclassmembers and how segrega t ion wil l a f fec t t h e i r l i ve s as adulINDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS

18. The p la in t i f f P.J . i s a s ix year-o ld re ta rded chi ld wl ives with his parents , Mr. and Mrs. W.J. in west HartfoConnect icut .


10/49

19. P. s re t a rda t ion and associa ted developmentalcogni t ive delays are caused by Down s Syndrome.

20. pi formal educat ion began in 1985 when h i s pareenro l led him in an ear ly in te rven t ion home s t imula t ion progopera ted by the Connecticut Department of Mental Retarda t ion DM

21. During the 1986-1987 school year, P. was enrol led iMR ea r ly in te rven t ion program housed in West Hart ford sch

f ac i l i t i e s .22. During school years 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90, P.

enro l led in a segregated program in the smith School in WHart ford . During t h i s t ime frame, P. had almost no opportuni tyi n t e r a c t with nondisabled chi ldren .

23. Mr. and Mrs. J . repea tedly c r i t i c i zed the segrega t iont h e i r son. Although West Hartford promised to increase the numof in te rac t ions between P. and nondisabled chi ldren , pi i so la tfrom nondisabled chi ldren continued.

24. At a Planning and Placement Team PPT) meeting on June1990, West Hart ford recommended t ha t P. be placed in a s econtained classroom a t the Norfe ld t school in West Hartford. Tplacement was se lec ted because the Board was developing a prog

10


11/49

for children with disabi l i t ies similar to p I S a t the NorfeSchool. The parents requested tha t the i r son be placed inregular class in p I S neighborhood school, with modifications to tcurriculum and the provision of additional supports to the reguclassroom teacher , as appropriate.

25. The West Hartford-controlled T decided tha t P. mat tend Norfeldt School ra ther than his neighborhood school (MorSchool) because Norfeldt was where West Hartford educated childwith disab i l i t i e s similar to those possessed by P.

26. The West Hartford-controlled T also decided tha twould be allowed to attend regular classes where appropriateThe phrase where appropriate was defined as whenever P. cokeep up with the nondisabled children .

27. one of the West Hartford teachers or administratorsat tended the T meetings had ever placed or recommendedplacement of a retarded chi ld in a regular classroom for speceducation instruct ion.

28. There was no discussion a t any of the T meetings abwhat modifications or adaptations to the s taff ing curriculummater ia ls might enable P. to receive an appropriate spec


12/49

education program in a regular classroom a t the Morley school. None member of the PPT was will ing to discuss the parents requor suggest an independent consultant with experience in placiretarded children in regular classes to f ac i l i t a te meaningdiscussions.

29. The parents requested a hearing pursuant to 2 U.Ssect ion 1415 to contest west Hartford1s refusal to consider threquest tha t the i r child receive special education ins t ruc t iona regular classroom in his neighborhood school.

30. The hearings consumed seven days. On the morning off i r s t day of hearing, the Board offered to increase to one-halfthe amount of time P. would be allowed to spend in a reguclassroom. There had been no PPT meeting to discuss th i soffer or any new data tha t could be used as a basis for the shin the Board s posit ion. The parents rejected th is offer .

31. During the hearings, the parents presented three expwitnesses , a l l with considerable experience in integrat ing yochildren with retardation in to regular classrooms. Regina MillPh.D., professor a t the University of Hartford; Mary Beth BrudEd. D the former Director of the Pediatr ic Research and Train

12


13/49

center a t the University of connecticut, present ly an associprofessor a t ew York Medical college; and Cathy Daguio, Direcof the Early Intervention project a t the Universi ty of Connectict es t i f ied tha t with appropriate modifications and adaptationsincreased support to the classroom teacher, P. could receiveeffect ive and appropriate special education program in a reguclassroom in his neighborhood school. They also t es t i f ied tha tl i t e ra tu re in the f ie ld establ i shes tha t retarded children lemore when educated with the i r nondisabled peers ra ther than wdisabled children) and tha t the education of nondisabled childis not affected by such placements.

32. ome fourteen teachers and administrators employedWest Hartford t e s t i f i ed on behalf of the Board. All conceded tthey had no education or hands-on t ra ining to prepare themeducate or recommend the placement of children with retardatin to regular classrooms, and tha t they had never placedrecommended the placement of a child with re tardat ion in a reguclass Nevertheless, each West Hartford teacher and administrat e s t i f i ed tha t segregation was a necessary component ofeducation p r o g r a ~

13


14/49


15/49

analysis of the extent to which P. could be placed in a regulclass in his neighborhood school; 4 fa i led to explain how two vedif fe ren t and confl ict ing proposals from the Board could bothappropriate; and 5 fa i led to mention or explain why an integratneighborhood school program was not appropriate in l ight of dapresented a t the hearing by p l a i n t i f f s expert , K Daguio, whshowed tha t P. made more progress in the Universi ty of Hartfopreschool program than during any comparable time in WHartford s segregated special education programs.

36. The pla in t i f f , L.G., i s three years and ten months of aand has been diagnosed as manifesting Down s Syndrome. Shementally retarded and has communication diff icul t ies .

37. She began to receive ear ly intervention services a t hofrom the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation a t about fomonths of age.

38. Beginning in September of 1988, L. was enrolled inprivate in tegrated day care program in Glastonbury. Speceducation and re la ted therapies were provided by MR professionin the day care set t ing.

15


16/49

39. In September of 1989, DMR moved her program to anothpr iva te in tegra ted day care program ca l l ed Today' s ChildGlastonbury, Connecticut . Special educa t ion and re la ted se rvicwere again provided by DMR profess ionals in the day care se t t in

40. The defendant , Wethersf ie ld Board of Education, becarespons ib le fo r provid ing spec ia l educa t ion to L. beginning withe 1990 1991 school year.

41. At PPT meetings he ld in June, 1990 to discuss Lplacement for the 1990 1991 school year, the Board took tpos i t ion t ha t L. should be placed in i t s four-day-a-week preschoprogram a t the Webb School in Wethersf ield . The Board hconducted no formal eva lua t ion or t e s t i ng of L. a t the t ime and hnot prepared an indiv idua l educat ion plan for her . On informat iand be l i e f , the Board 's placement dec is ion was based e n t i r e lythe na tu re and sever i ty of L s d i sab i l i t y .

42. While the parents expressed a wil l ingness to consider tWethersf ie ld Preschool WPS) program, they expressed concern thnondisabled chi ldren were permit ted to a t tend only two of the foweek days the program was scheduled.d i s a b i l i t i e s at tended on the other two days.

16

Only chi ldren wi


17/49

43. None of the teachers or administrators at tending thmeeting, or the subsequent PPT meeting on october 26, 1990, wewill ing to discuss the nature and extent of supports necessarycontinue L s placement a t Today s Child. The Wethersfieadministrators were also unwilling to consider modifying the Wprogram so tha t nondisabled children could attend a l l four days

44. In the face of the Board s inf lexibi l i ty L was placedToday s Child by her parents with the support and ass is tance of tUnivers i y of Conne cticut s Early Intervention Proj ect . Tparents then asked Wethersfield to provide speech therapy and othnecessary services to L The Board refused.

45. The parents requested a hearing on October 31, 1990resolve the i r differences with the Board on the placement issue

46. n November 16, 1990, Wethersfield s attorney made tfollowing set t lement offer to the parents:

1990.

We continue to be will ing to increase non-handicappedpeer part ic ipat ion to the ful l four days, in order tha tL s ent i re program may be in an environment with bothhandicapped and non-handicapped agemates.47. The parents accepted the Board s offer on November 2

17


18/49

48. y December 7, 1990, the Board had decided to renegethe agreement. According to the Board s attorney, Wethersfiecould not deliver on i t s promise to integrate the preschool prograbecause the parents of another disabled child attending the prograobjected.

49. The parents requested a hearing to enforce the i r agreemewith the Board. On the f i r s t day of the hearing, the parenrequested an interim order th t would have required the provisioof speech and other necessary therapies pursuant to 34 C.F.Rsect ions 300.450 300.452. The hearing off icer refused to grathe parents request or to give reasons for such refusal .

50. The parents presented two expert witnesses who tes t i f ieth t L. could receive an appropriate special education programa regular classroom with nondisabled children. They t e s t i f i ed ththe WPS program was inappropriate because t was segregated hathe t ime. They recommended a supported placement in Today s ChiDay Care Center as th t environment gave L. the most approprialanguage and behavior models.

51. The Board called administrators and a teacherwitnesses . They t e s t i f i ed th t the half-t ime separat ion

18


19/49

severely disabled children from nondisabled children was necessarand tha t appropriate education could not be provided to L.Today s Child Day Care Center. The board witnesses tes t i f iehowever, tha t they had no formal t ra ining or experience in placichildren with retardation in to regular classrooms ful l time.

52. The hearing off icer held tha t the program offered by tBoard was appropriate, but ordered the Board to permit L. to bria fr iend with her to the program. The hearing off icer howevfailed: 1 to explain why t was necessary to segregate L. days per week; 2 to require that the PPT consider what suppoand modifications were necessary to enable L. to attend school ftime with nondisabled children; 3 to explain how L s need fofu l l time integrated placement i s sa t i s f ied by allowing herbring a fr iend to school; 4 to require tha t the independconsultant have the t ra ining and expertise to ass i s t the teamdeveloping a ful l time integrated placement for L., and 5 to oror explain his fa i lure to order re la ted therapies pursuant toC.F.R. sections 300.450 - 300.452.

53. The Board s decis ion to place L. in a segregated progrbefore t evaluated or developed an educational plan for

19


20/49

consti tuted a placement based on disabi l i ty ra ther than individuneed. L could obtain a ful l time in tegrated program i f sattended other school systems in connecticut or public schoolsother s ta tes .

54. M L is a ten year-old boy with disabling conditioincluding retardation secondary to Down s syndrome.55. Following f ive years of segregated preschool educatioM s parents demanded an integrated educational experience for theson. At a PPT on June 13, 1988, Windham f inal ly agreed to placein a regular f i r s t grade class .

56. The Board fa i led to conduct any s ta f f t ra ining priorthe placement or provide M s teacher with reasonable and necessasupport . As a resu l t of these fa i lures M s placement was nappropriate. M was withdrawn from school by agreement of aconcerned, homebound instruct ion was in i t ia ted a new teacher widentif ied and t rained, and an integrat ion specia l i s t and aide whired and t rained.

57. These modifications and preparat ions were recommendedindependent experts from the Universi y of Connecticut and t

20


21/49

: . :

.,

un ivers i ty of Vermont. The Univers i ty of Connect icut HeaCenter , Ped ia t r i c Research and Training Center, was scheduledprovide much of the i n i t i a l s t a f f t r a in ing and ac t as a resourc

58. M was moved to h i s new classroom in his neighborhoschool by February, 1989. The remainder of M s f i r s t graexperience was success fu l . All of his specia l educat ii n s t ruc t ion was del ivered in the r egu la r f i r s t grade classrooHis growth and development dur ing t h i s per iod were considerable

59. Unfortunately , M s second grade t eacher did not receit he same prepara t ion and support as his f i r s t grade teacher . Ti n t eg ra t ion spec i a l i s t was reassigned. The school dismissed TUnivers i ty of Connect icut as a backup resource a f t e r U quest ioned ce r ta in prac t i ces of the Board. The en t i r e burdenplanning and providing specia l educat ion to M f e l l on an untrainsecond-grade teacher . None of the profess ionals o r s t a f f assignto the program had any pr ior exper ience providing specia l educatto a ch i ld with re t a rda t ion in a r egu la r classroom. This l ackplanning caused the program to f a i l .

60. The Board eventua l ly removed M from the regu la r secograde classroom for i n s t ruc t ion in math and reading. The Bo

21


22/49

jus t i f i ed i t s actions on M's dis t rac t ib i l i ty . I t fai ledhowever, to address th i s behavior problem in a professionalacceptable manner or re ta in an independent consultant who heffect ively addressed similar problems, before M was removed frothe second grade classroom for math and reading.

61. During May, June and July of 1990, PPT meetings were heto discuss M's th i rd grade placement. The Board's posi t ion a t tmeetings was tha t the prior year ' s experience jus t i f ied withdrawof M from the regular th i rd grade class for reading and math. Tparents opposed the proposed separation from the th i rd grade claunless the removal was jus t i f ied by some compelling reason. TBoard would not consider independent consul tat ions to determiwhether addit ional support or different ins t ruct ional techniqumight reduce the time spent in the segregated se t t ing .

62. The parents requested a hearing to challenge the Boarin f lex ib i l i ty on the integrat ion issue. The parents challenged tassignment of Edward Pepyne, Ph.D. as the hearing off ice r becauhe had previously decided tha t a less disabled boy with DowSyndrome could not attend a regular class sole ly because tha t chicould not compete with nondisabled peers in a l l areas. The paren


23/49

\ \

argued tha t by th i s prior decision the hearing off ice r embraced thsame discriminatory and i l l egal policy tha t many school dis t r icuse to consign students with disabi l i t ies to segregated classroomThe hearing off ice r denied the motion without explanation.

63. Only one witness t e s t i f i ed a t the hearing who hconsiderable experience and t ra in ing in educating children with Mdisab i l i t i e s in regular classrooms. Michael Giangrecco, Ph.Dt es t i f ied tha t his facul ty dut ies a t the Universi ty of Vermorequired him to resolve s imi lar problems so tha t children wire tardat ion could attend regular classes in Vermont. He tes t i f ietha t M was being educated apart from his nondisabled peers becauthe facul ty and s ta f f had not received the necessary t ra ining asupport. He also t e s t i f i ed tha t children with M s disabi l i t i eat tend regular classes in Vermont and in numerous other locatiothroughout the United s ta tes . Final ly, he t e s t i f i ed tha t M s Iwas not appropriate. He urged the part ies to pr io r i t i ze the goaon the plan such tha t the team could focus on the most importagoals in the th i rd grade classroom.

64. The hearing off ice r s opinion did not mention DGiangreco s testimony or explain why the techniques or t ra in ing D

23


24/49

Giangreco suggested should not be t r ied before M was separatfrom the regular class . He also did not explain why integrateducation should be available to children with similar disabi l i t iin other states , and elsewhere in Connecticut, but not in Windham

65. The Board's witnesses t e s t i f i ed tha t M was receiving tmost in tegrated program possible or tha t they didn t know wheta ful ly in tegrated program was possible. All t es t i f ied tha t M wthe f i r s t child they had educated in a regular classroom and ththe i r ef for t s over a l l were successful .

66. The hearing off ice r concluded tha t M couldappropriately educated in a regular classroom ful l- t ime i f t

overly ambitious goals s ta ted in his IEP were rewri t ten to focmore on functional , behavioral and communication sk i l l s and lessacademic ski l l s . The hearing officer refused, however, to ordtha t M's IEP goals be rewrit ten to emphasize more functional goas suggested by the parents. The hearing off ice r accordingrefused to consider the central issue in the case whether Meducated with children who are not disabled to the maximum exteappropriate and whether M could be educated sa t i s fac tor i ly inregular classroom.

24


25/49

I N K TZ67. The p la in t i f f , Ian Katz, i s a s i x year old ch i ld w

l i ves with h i s parents , Mr. and Mrs. Mark Katz, in Stamforconnect icut .

68. Ian has been diagnosed as a ch i ld with mentre ta rda t ion . I a n s re t a rda t ion and associa ted developmental acogni t ive delays are the r e su l t of Down's Syndrome.

69. Following two years of educat ion in the segregatStamford preschool program, Mr. and Mrs. Katz requested a fu l l t imregular kindergar ten placement for t he i r son.

70. Previous promises made by the school board for tokmainstreaming were not implemented. In March, 1990, for examp

I a n s IEP provided for one hour per day in a regular kindergartc lass . This commitment was never honored, and the parents were nt o l d of t he schoo l s dec is ion to ignore t h i s pr imary IEP provisir e l a t i ng to i n t eg ra t ion .

71. Similar ly , in November 1990, a decis ion was madeschool s t a f f to mainstream Ian during an a r t c lass . Ian waccompanied by a soc ia l worker who knew littl or nothing aboIan , and nothing about spec ia l educat ion ins t ruc t ion . No oth

25


26/49

r: :\'I,\.--.. ./

meaningful s teps , such as inserv ice t r a in ing of the a r t t eachewere t r i e d before the placement was made. After four sess ionstamford removed Ian from the a r t c lass even though the l acksuccess was a d i r e c t r e su l t of the schoo l s f a i l u r e to plan .

72. }he schools profess lonals met a t a worklng seSSlopr i o r to the PPT fo r the 1991-1992 school year and decided t ha t tschool would not suppor t the paren t s reques t t ha t specieducat ion be del ivered to Ian in a r egu la r kindergar ten se t t inThe parents were not inv i ted to t h i s meeting.

73. At the PPT meeting on May 9, 1991 the employees of tstamford Board of Education re fused to discuss the paren t s requefo r a r egu la r classroom placement in the f ami ly s neighborhoschool because the profess ionals had decided in the working sessit h a t t was not appropr ia te .

74. In pa r t i c u l a r , the school profes s iona l s re fuseddiscuss what curr iculum modif ica t ions , and support se rv ices woube necessary to enable Ian to a t tend a r egu la r classroom in hneighborhood school .

75. The school profess ionals advised the parents a t the Pt h a t the program they were proposing ( regular classroom placeme

26


27/49

in neighborhood school would not be poss ib le given the caseload othe p ro fes s iona l s working in the neighborhood school and the fat h a t T and T se rv ices would not be ava i lab le a t the neighborhoschool .

76. None of the school profess ionals or adminis t ra tors wa t tended the working sess ion and the T meeting had ever placeo r recommended the placement, of a re tarded chi ld in a regulclassroom s e t t i ng for academic ins t ruc t ion .

77. None of the school profess ionals who p a r t i c i p a t e d in thdecis ion to r e j e c t the family s reques t for a r egu la r classrooplacement had ever v i s i t ed a program where re tarded chi ldren aplaced in a r egu la r classroom and rece ive t h e i r spec ia l educat iins t ruc t ion in t ha t se t t ing .

78. The school profess ionals took the pos i t ion a t thet h a t Ian would be permi t ted to spend no t ime in the regulclassroom fo r the 1991-1992 school year.

79. The hear ing of f i ce r heard test imony from a specieducat ion teacher from the Mansfield Publ ic Schools t ha t ar e ta rded ch i ld ren in t he i r school system K-4 (s ix chi ldren) a t teregu la r classrooms in t he i r neighborhood schools fu l l t ime. S

27


28/49

( )

a l so t e s t i f i e d t ha t Ian would at tend a r egu la r classroom i f hl ived in Mansfield .

80. The hear ing of f i ce r also heard test imony from aindependent consul tant , Eileen Luddy t ha t numerous programs is t a t e and out of s t a t e have success fu l ly placed chi ldren adisabled and more disabled than Ian in a r egu la r classroom witthe necessary modificat ions and supports .

81. During the hearings the Board made an of fe r ose t t l emen t . The Board indicated t ha t s ince addi t ional space habecome avai lab le near the kindergar ten classrooms t ha t t wwi l l ing to permi t a l l par t ic ipants in the START specia l educat ioc lass , inc luding Ian to in te rac t with nondisabled kindergartechi ldren for lunch physica l educat ion and media center . Tparen t s re j ec ted the of fe r as the Board could not say how much t imIan would spend in a r egu la r classroom and what ins t ruc t ion ,any he would receive in the kindergar ten classroom.

82. The Board then offered test imony a t the hear ing t ha thad changed i t s mind. That I a n s program would be changed frospending no t ime with nondisabled chi ldren as spec i f i ed in the IEto spending an unspeci f ied amount of t ime with nondisable

28


29/49

chi ldren . This suggest ion had never been presented to I an s PPand was not indiv idual ized to meet I a n s needs.

83. The parents objec ted to tes t imony about t h i s new apoorly def ined program because t was not in wri t ing , did ndef ine how Ian as opposed to the c lass as a whole woulda f fec ted and did not say when or to what ex ten t Ian would educated with chi ldren without d i s a b i l i t i e s .

84. In the face of the paren t s object ion , the hear iof f i ce r ordered the parents and the school to convene a PPTdiscuss the of fe r t ha t the parents had a l ready re j ec ted . Tparents objected to t h i s at tempt by the school to convert t h i sdef ined se t t lement of fe r in to a fu l l f ledged PPT recommendatioha l f way through the hearing.

85. The parents and school representa t ives met as orderedthe hear ing of f i ce r . The Board did not present a wri t ten planthe meeting and could not say how Ian would be affec ted by tproposal or how the program would be implemented. The parents aschool could not agree on the program as the program could notdef ined.

29


30/49

86. The hearing officer then found tha t t h i s proposed prograwas appropriate and tha t a regular kindergarten placement, modifito meet Ian s needs was not appropriate.

87. The hearing officer acknowledged tha t more in teract iofor Ian was possible , but said three questions had toaddressed: 1 Ian s readiness, 2 the lack of t ra in ing of schopersonnel in integrated placements and 3 the extent to whiin tegrat ion may affect the other kindergarten students .

88. The hearing officer ordered the Stamford Board to t rai t s personnel on techniques to in tegrate Ian and to consider moviIan in to a regular classroom to a greater extent in January, 199

89. The hearing off ice r erred in deciding the case in thway in the following respects:

a. The hearing officer ordered Ian in to a program thhad not been defined in writ ing, had not been incorporated into hIEP and had not been individualized for Ian.

b. The hearing officer fa i led to address the parentobjection tha t none of the school personnel making the placemedecisions had any knowledge of how to educate retarded children regular set t ings , had bothered to v i s i t set t ings where childr

30


31/49

r,r.~ - .

with dis b i l i t ies similar to those possessed by Ian were educatefu l l time in regular kindergarten, and th t the school fa i led tre t in an independent consultant ski l led in in tegrat ion technologyto ss is t in the placement decision.

c. The hearing off ice r f i led to address the parentsobjection th t the schools decision was discr iminatory anotherwise i l l eg l in th t the decision in p r t was based on thlack of resources t the neighborhood school.

d. The hearing off ice r f i led to define what Ian has tdo to become ready for a regular classroom placement, or why thlack of t r in ing of school personnel jus t i f i e s his avoidance of thin tegrat ion issue.

e. The hearing off ice r erred in concluding th t thschool ' s concerns, about regular classroom placement jus t i f i e s hrefusal to address the cent ral issue in the case.

f . The hearing officer erred by not requir ing thschool board to prove th t a regular classroom placement cannot bachieved s t i s f c tor i ly for Ian Katz with necessary modificationand supports, and th t education in the Board's program provideIan education with his nondisabled peers to the maximum appropriat

31


32/49

t 1 ~ ~',::

extent .g. The hearing officer erred in fa i l ing to decid

whether education in the Board's program offered Ian education winondisabled children to the maximum appropriate extent , and whethIan could attend a regular kindergarten class i f modifications wemade to the kindergarten program to address Ian s individual need

h. The hearing officer erred in concluding tha t regulclassroom placement are experimental and tha t only four schodi s t r i c t s in Connecticut have experience in fu l l time regulclassroom placements.

i . The hearing officer fa i led to explain why the amouof time Ian spends in a regular classroom should depend entire lywhich school di s t r i c t he happens to at tend.

j The hearing officer fa i led to apply the facts to tlaw.

k. The hearing officer fa i led to apply the vec r i t e r i a he said should be applied in an integration case.

1. The hearing off ice r applied cr i te r ia which ai r re levant and discriminatory, such as whether Ian is ready fin tegrat ion, and whether the school s ta f f have been t ra ined.

32


33/49


34/49

i n t e r e s t s of the c lass . A c lass ac t ion i s super ior to any othavai lab le method for the f a i r and e f f i c i en t adjudicat ion of thcontroversy.DEFEND NTS

93. The defendant , Connecticut s ta te Board of Education,respons ib le for supervis ion and contro l of the educat ioni n t e r e s t s of the Sta te of Connecticut . This includes thdevelopment and supervis ion of the educat ional programs fchi ldren requir ing specia l educat ion and re spons ib i l i ty fimplementation of requirements imposed by federa l law on the s taeduca t iona l agency, including, 34 C.F.R. sec t ions 300.550 throug300.556.

94. The defendant , Gerald Tirozzi , i s the Commissioner of tConnecticut Department of Education. As such, he i s responsibfor assur ing t ha t a l l aspec ts of each disabled c h i l d s specieducat ion program are appropr ia te . As CommissionerConnec t icut s s ta te Education Agency, 20 U.S.C. sec t ion 1412 6),i s respons ib le for i s su ing pol ic ie s and regula t ions and conductimonitoring ac t iv i t i e s to ensure t ha t l oca l boards of educatiadhere to the requirements of federa l law, inc luding 34 C F .

34


35/49

sect ions 300.550 through 300.556.95. The west Hartford Board of Education i s responsible und

s t te and federal law for providing specia l education and re la teservices consis tent with federal requirements to l l disablechildren residing in West Hartford including P.J.

96. The Wethersfield Board of Education i s responsible unds t te and federal law for providing specia l education and relateservices consis tent with federal requirements to l l disablechildren residing in Wethersfield including L.G.

97. The Windham Board of Education i s responsible under s t tand federal law for providing special education and relateservices consis tent with federal law to l l disabled childreres id ing in Windham Connecticut including M.L.

98. The Stamford Board of Education i s responsible unds t t e and federal law for providing specia l and re l ted services

l l disabled children in Stamford Connecticut including ian KatIV. THE FACTS

99. At the time of the administrat ive hearings in the L.Gcase Wethersfield had never placed or recommended the placemenof a re tarded chi ld in a regular classroom fu l l time with necessa

35


36/49

..-. /

supports a t any l evel in i t s school system.100. At the t ime of the P.J . adminis t ra t ive hear ing W

Hart ford had never placed or recommended the placement ofr e ta rded ch i ld in r egu la r classroom fu l l t ime with the necessasupport se rv ices a t any l eve l of i t s school system.

101. M.L. was the f i r s t re ta rded ch i ld placed fu l l t ime inregu la r classroom in Windham connec t icut . Since then some youngr e ta rded ch i ld ren have been inc luded in r egu la r classrooms fspec ia l educat ion i n s t ruc t ion .

102. M.L. would not be e l i g i b l e for i n s t ruc t ion in regulclassroom i he l ived in Wethersf ield or West Hartford.

103. Ian Katz L.G. and P.J . would be e l i g i b l e for fut ime r egu la r c l a s s placement i they l ived in Windham connect icu

104. The four defendant school d i s t r i c t s do not considregu la r classroom placement the pre fe r red opt ion for ch i ldren wr e t a rd a t i o n and do not se r ious ly discuss t h i s opt ion with tparents of ch i ldren with d i sab i l i t i e s .

105. The prac t i ces and po l i c i es r e l a t i ng to r egu la r c laplacement of chi ldren with d i s a b i l i t i e s of these school d i s t r i care typ ica l of those fol lowed by the overwhelming major i ty

36


37/49

school di s t r i c t s in connecticut.106. Although the s ta te defendants know or should know throug

data in the i r possession or through mandated monitorinact ivi t i e s tha t few retarded children receive more than tokeexposure to regular classroom instruction in Connecticut they havdone nothing to require local public schools to increaspart ic ipat ion of children with retardation in regular schooac t iv i t i e s or instruction.

107. Although the defendant Connecticut Department oEducation receives and reviews a l l decisions of s ta te hearinoff ice rs t has done nothing to a l t e r the uniform pract ice of thpresent hearing officers of not ordering more integrat ion thalocal boards of education are will ing to offer voluntari ly.

108. he s ta te defendants have also fa i led to issue guidelineand provide t ra ining to hearing officers to a l t e r the i r uniforpract ice of monitoring the discriminatory and i l lega l practices anpolic ies of local school boards described above.

109. Most school systems in Connecticut have never placedretarded child in a regular classroom for academic ins t ruct ion.

37


38/49

.,..-,:: \t ,.-

110. Despite the presumption in 34 C.F.R. 300.552 thachi ldren with disabi l i t ies should be educated in the i r neighborhooschools, or as close to home as possible, most schoolsconnecticut t ransport retarded children to other schools in or oof town because of the nature or severi ty of the chi ld ' s disab i l ior the configurat ion of the town's service delivery system.

I l l . Local boards of education refuse to place children wire tardat ion in regular classrooms with the necessary supportsthe basis of such improper considerat ions as the configurat ionthe service delivery system, the avai labi l i ty of space and/or thcategory of each student 's disab i l i ty , ra ther than on the studentindividual needs.

112. These practices confl ic t with the requirements thpublic schools must educate children with disabi l i t ies winondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate and thspecial c lasses, separate schooling or other removal of handicappchildren from the regular educational environment occur only whthe nature or severi ty of the handicap is such tha t educationregular classes with the use of supplemental aids and serviccannot be achieved sa t i s fac tor i ly . [34 C.F.R. Section 300.550]

38


39/49

113. The s ta te defendants have fa i led to provide technicass is tance and t ra in ing to local school di s t r i c t s to ins truct thabout t he i r responsibi l i t ies to implement the federal mandate ahow to implement tha t mandate.

114. The s ta te defendants have also fa i led to monitor locschool di s t r i c t s to determine whether the federal integratirequirements are being implemented. In part icular the s tadefendants have not col lected information to determine i f studenare removed from the regular education environment, or from theneighborhood schools, based on educational need or upon such noeducational and improper reasons as the ava i lab i l i ty of spaccategory of handicap, configurat ion of the service delivery systor administrative convenience.

115. The s ta te defendants have also fa i led to investigaallegations tha t local public schools ignore the fedeintegrat ion mandate, and to take swift and effect ive correctiac t ion where disabled children are improperly excluded from reguclassroom ins t ruc t ion .

116. As a resu l t of the s ta te defendants fa i lure to implem4 C.P.R. Sections 300.552 through 300.556, and i t s fa i lure

39


40/49


41/49

educable mental ly re ta rded chi ldren are educated with nondisabls tudents more than e ighty percent of the t ime. other ca tegor iesre tarded chi ldren are in tegra ted with l e s s frequency.

119. All re tarded s tudents even those labeled severe lyprofoundly re tarded have fee l ings needs and motivat ions s imito nondisabled s tudents . All can l ea rn grow and developappropr ia te educat ional serv ices are del ivered .

120. All s tudents with d i s a b i l i t i e s are harmed by segregat ioThei r se l f -es teem i s damaged in ways t ha t cannot eas i lyremedied. segrega t ion produces adul t s w o cannot e a s i l y funct iin supported voca t iona l o r re s ident ia l se t t ings .

121. Experience and the profess ional l i t e r a tu r e a l so es t ab l it ha t ch i ld ren with d i s a b i l i t i e s l earn more s k i l l s inc ludiacademic func t iona l and soc ia l s k i l l s than ch i ld ren with the sao r s imi la r d i s a b i l i t i e s w o are educated in se l f -conta inclassrooms o r separa te schools .

122. Experience and the l i t e r a t u r e a l so es tab l i sh thch i ld ren with d i s a b i l i t i e s es tab l i sh meaningful and l a s t ire la t ionships with chi ldren without d isab i l i t i e s only when theyeducated wi th nondisabled chi ldren . The so -ca l l ed in tegra t

41


42/49

programs offered by west Hartford and Wethersf ield , for examplr e su l t in unst ruc tured i n t e rac t ions with nondisabled chi ldren , fb r i e f per iods each day, and are unsuccessful in es tab l i sh inl a s t i ng re l a t ionsh ips .v. CL IMS

123. By fa i l ing to develop pol icy binding on loca l schod i s t r i c t s , or to monitor the ex ten t to which ch i ld ren wir e t a rd a t i o n rece ive i n s t ruc t ion in r egu la r classrooms, andf a i l i ng to t ake such other ac t ions as are necessary and appropr iat o e f f e c t i ve ly implement the federa l i n t eg ra t ion mandate, tdefendant , Sta te Board of Education, and the defendant Tirozzhave v io la t ed 34 C.F.R. sec t ions 300.550, through 300.556,u.S.C. 1412 5) B) and 1414 a ) 1 ) C) iv ) .

124. By fa i l ing to t r a in hearing of f i c e r s and to monitt h e i r a c t i v i t i e s in in tegra t ion cases , the s t a t e defendants haf a i l e d t o ensure f a i r and impar t ia l due process proceedingsv io l a t i on of 34 C.F.R. sec t ion 300.501; and 20 U.S.C. Sect i1415 a) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentthe un i ted s t a t e s Const i tu t ion .

42


43/49

125. By permitt ing local public schools including the locadefendants to continue the practice of denying retarded childreaccess to regular classes based on ava i lab i l i ty of services exteor nature of disab i l i ty , configurat ion of the service deliversystem and ava i lab i l i ty of space ra ther than on student needthe defendants have viola ted the p la in t i f f s r ights and r ights othe pla in t i f f class secured by 29 U.S.C. section 794 and 2 U.S.Csect ion 1401 e t

126. By placing retarded children based on administrat ivcons iderat ions and on the nature of a ch i ld s disabling conditionra ther than on individual need the local defendants have violatethe pla in t i f f s r ights and r ights of pla in t i f f classmembers secureby 29 U.S.C. section 794 and 34 C.F.R. sections 300.550 a300.552.

127. By removing handicapped children from or denying theaccess to regular classrooms without meaningfully exploring thposs ibi l i ty of a regular class placement through the PPT procesthe local defendants have viola ted 34 C.F.R. sect ion 300.550.

128. Because hearing officer Dawson fa i led to order explain the reasons for not ordering re la ted support services

4


44/49

L.G. she was denied sUbstantive and procedural r ights securedthe Fourteenth Amendment to the united s ta tes Consti tut ion and hr igh ts secured by 34 C.F.R. section 300.450 300.452.VI. RELIEF:

WHEREFORE the pla int i f fs respectful ly request tha t the cou1. Permanently enjoin the s ta te defendants to insure th

each pla in t i f f and member of the pla in t i f f class receives speceducation in a regular classroom to the maximum extent appropriaand tha t the i r removal from regular educational environment occonly when the nature or sever i ty of the disabi l i ty is such theducation in regular classes with the use of supplementary aidsservices cannot be achieved sa t i s fac tor i ly

2. Permanently enjoin the s ta te defendants to insure theach local board of education in Connecticut is informed ofresponsibi l i ty to implement 34 C.F.R. sect ion 300.550 andprovided with technical assistance and t ra ining necessary to assthem in th i s e f for t

3. Permanently enj oin the s ta te defendants to determwhether each local board of education is making placementsclassmembers in accordance with 34 C.F.R. sect ion 300.550.

44


45/49

4. Permanently enjoin the s t a t e defendants to insure tht imely and e f fec t ive correc t ive ac t ion i s taken whenever locboards of educat ion are not found to be making placementsaccordance with 34 C.F.R. sec t ion 300.550.

5. Permanently enjoin the s t a t e defendants to submit a plfor cour t approval which spec i f i e s the t r a in ing and technicass i s t ance they wil l provide, and monitor ing and o ther ac t iv i t i einc luding pol icy development, they wil l conduct, to ensure tha tC.F.R. 300.550, 20 U.S.C. sec t ion 1412 5) B) and 20 U.S.C. sect i1414 a) 1) C) iv) are implemented by a l l publ ic schoolsConnect icut .

6. Permanently enjoin the s t a t e defendants to submit a pfor cour t approval which spec i f i e s what preserv ice and inservt r a in ing and overs ight of hearing of f i c e r s t w i l l provideensure t ha t famil ies request ing r egu la r classroom placements agiven a fu l l and f a i r opportuni ty to obta in such placementsrequired by 34 C.F.R. sec t ion 300.550 and 300.501.

7 . Permanently enjoin the s t a t e defendants to submit a plfor cour t approval which descr ibes the ac t ions t wil l t akein su re t ha t loca l school d i s t r i c t s t ake a l l necessary a

45


46/49

0\. ,'


47/49

data and tes t imony presented by the famil ies for not properlimplementing the presumptions favoring i n t eg ra t ion for norequi r ing PPTs to develop IEPs before they make placemendec i s ions for not requir ing School Boards to prove t ha t thBoard s placement of fe r s education with nondisabled ch i ld ren to thmaximum appropr ia te extent and, in the L.G. case, for not orderinthe in tegra ted program tha t was offered and accepted.

11. Permanently enj oin the loca l defendants to re ta in aindependent consul tant with experience in the success fu l placemenof re tarded chi ldren in regular classrooms fu l l t ime, to ass i seach PPT in i t s determinat ion as to whether chi ldren witre ta rda t ion can be placed in regular classrooms a f t e r addi t ionasupports as provided and adapta t ions are made.

12. pre l iminar i ly and permanently order Wethersf ield tprovide speech and other necessary support se rv ices to L.Gpursuant to 4 C.F.R. sec t ion 300.450 e t

13. Cer t i fy the p la in t i f f c lass as speci f ied in paragraph 1of the complaint .

47


48/49

14. Award pla in t i f f s costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 2u.S.C. sect ion 1415 and 42 U.S.C. 1988.

BY:

48

INTERVENORS AND

A o ~ ~David ShawTROWBRIDGE IDE MANSFIELDAND SHAW PC207 Main Stree tHartford CT 06106Tel: 249-9321ct05239


49/49

CERTIFICATIONThis i s to c e r t i f y t ha t a copy of the foregoing was mailed,pos tage prepa id to the fo l lowing counsel of record on t h i s 4thday o f October, 1991:

Deborah S. FreemanSke l le Vinkel Rot tner P.C.P. o. Box 14890Har t fo rd T 06114-0890Laurie A. DeaneRalph E. UrbanAsst . Attorney General110 Sherman s t .Hart ford T 06105Linda L. YoderShipman GoodwinOne American RowHar t fo rd T 06103-2819Martha K. McMillen242 Broad s t .Wethers f i e ld T 06109

David C. Shaw

p.j. original lawsuit

Documents