|
By Ann K. Williams
Staff Writer
June 4 -- As growing controversy over the School
District’s use of confidentiality agreements threatens
to hold up City funds, district representatives sought to
clarify the school administration’s policy in conversations
with The Lookout this weekend.
Confidentiality agreements with contentious parents of special
education students are "commonplace" in school districts
in Southern California, said Adam Newman, a Cerritos lawyer
who specializes in special education dispute resolution.
"We definitely understand the concern that's been raised
and we want to solve it and we want to solve it quickly,"
said Newman, who will help the local School District iron
out its differences with the City.
In Santa Monica, which claims some 1,500 special education
students, there have been 88 settlement agreements this year
with parents who dispute the level of services given their
children, according to district officials.
Newman, said he has worked with 20 school districts and is
familiar with special education practices in Los Angeles and
Orange counties.
“I'd estimate a confidentiality provision of some sort…
in as high as 50 percent of (special education resolution)
cases if not more than that," said Newman, an attorney
with the law firm Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.
Hanging in the balance is $530,000 in municipal funds held
up by the Santa Monica City Council, which found itself deadlocked
after hearing allegations that the district is using confidentiality
provisions to silence dissenting voices.
The debate widened last month when parents of special education
students publicly accused the district of silencing them with
“gag orders” similar to those imposed on the district’s
former chief financial officer Winston Braham.
Braham was unable to speak publicly about district finances
without the administration’s approval, because of confidentiality
and non-disparagement clauses in his settlement agreement.
The district has since dropped the confidentiality clause,
but the non-disparagement clause is still in effect.
According to Newman, the district's settlement agreements
with parents of special education students are an attempt
to resolve disputes quickly and fairly to the benefit of all,
particularly to the children involved.
If parents aren't satisfied with the services the District
offers in yearly individual education programs (IEP's), the
settlement process gives them a chance to negotiate for the
benefits they want without undergoing time-consuming and expensive
hearings, Newman said.
The negotiation itself "creates a situation of integrity,"
said Newman, a parent of two special education students himself.
"We try to solve the problem early on. How is that not
good for the kid?"
Deputy Superintendent Tim Walker, who was hired in February,
2005 to manage the district’s special education services,
agreed.
"Our desire is to maintain a relationship with the parents
and to get them resolved as quickly and collaboratively as
is possible," Walker said.
The confidentiality clauses are often part of the settlement.
In the local School District they usually read as follows:
"To the extent permitted by the state, and/or federal
law, this Agreement shall remain confidential and its terms
shall not be disclosed by either party to any person except
District employees or advocates or legal counsel retained
by either party or for purposes of enforcement."
The clause is beneficial to both sides, Newman said.
"Both sides want to have some level of certainty. It's
for the good of the schools and for the parent,” Newman
said. "If each side walks away from an agreement feeling
a little bad, that's the sign of a good agreement."
Unlike a “gag order,” the agreement allows parents
to disclose information on a “need-to-know” basis,
Newman said.
"Usually there's some level of disclosure allowed for
purposes of implementation," he said.
And parents can appeal to a State mediator if they feel they
haven't received the benefits they were promised, Walker added.
Further, without a confidentiality clause prohibiting parents
from sharing the contents of their agreement with other parents,
litigation would "spike," Newman said.
Each child’s disability and treatment are unique, he
said. “What you give to one child is not applicable
to another child.”
Parents of other special education students might feel they
are not getting what their children need when they hear the
district is giving another child different treatment, said
Newman.
In fact, since the practice of settling special education
disputes at the district level became common procedure, the
district’s budget for lawyers in these cases has dropped
to a tenth of its former level, Walker said.
In 2003-2004, the district spent $316,000 on attorneys to
resolve special education cases. In 2004-2005, the year Walker
was hired and put his practices into effect, that figure decreased
to $167,000, and last year it dropped to $31,000, Walker said.
The number of disputed IEP's is falling as well. In 2004-2005,
out of approximately 1,500 special education plans, 142 settlement
agreements were reached. This year, one month before the end
of the school year, there have been 88 settlement agreements,
Walker said.
The district will find out whether its negotiations with the
City have borne fruit when the council votes on the $530,000
increase on June 12. The district has already been guaranteed
$6.5 million plus a $220,000 inflation increase.
|
