Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, No. 01-928 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2007)
A Wisconsin federal district court has ruled that Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) violated the "Child Find" provisions of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from September 2000 to June 2005. "Child Find" refers to requirements that school districts and states locate, identify, and evaluate all children suspected of having disabilities. In the class action lawsuit, the court confirmed the certification of the plaintiffs as a class consisting of: "[t]hose students eligible for special education services from [MPS] who are, have been or will be either denied or delayed entry or participation in the processes which result in a properly constituted meeting between the IEP team and the parents or guardians of the student." The suit alleged that MPS failed to meet its Child Find obligations through: (1) failure to refer students with a suspected disability in a timely manner; (2) failure to review all relevant data to determine the appropriate needs at the student’s initial evaluation; (3) a pattern of improper extensions of mandated time lines; and (4) use of suspensions during the pre-referral process, which impeded students’ initial evaluation. The suit also claimed DPI failed in its own Child Find obligations because IDEA places the ultimate implementation and enforcement responsibility for those provisions on the state education agency. MPS asserted the plaintiffs had failed to prove a systemic violation, arguing that: (1) any individual violations were susceptible to resolution through the administrative hearing process; and (2) the district’s policies and practices regarding Child Find comply with IDEA. While DPI acknowledged that it has Child Find obligations under IDEA, it argued that it had established and put in to practice a number of oversight procedure that satisfied those obligations.
The court first addressed the defendants’ contention that the court should deny class certification to the plaintiffs because MPS has not systemically violated the Child Find provisions. The court rejected MPS’s argument that the claim was not of a systemic violation because it dealt only with a "limited component" of IDEA, i.e., one that "involves only a substantive claim having to do with limited components of a program and if the administrative process is capable of correcting the problem." The court concluded that the evidence clearly established that "Child Find functions more than as a limited component of IDEA" because it is "one of the most important elements of the pre-determination stage."
The court next found the plaintiffs’ experts more persuasive than the defendants’. The plaintiffs’ experts identified three categories of violations: (1) non-compliance with the 90-day time limit for completing evaluations; (2) failure to identify, or untimely identification, of children with disabilities who were in need of special education, including students who had been subjected to excessive periods of suspension; and (3) potential problems with record keeping. Based on the testimony, the court concluded that: (1) both MPS and DPI failed to comply with their obligations under IDEA; (2) the MPS system was inadequate to locate and identify students with special education needs, particularly with respect to emotional problems and suspensions of students; (3) during a portion of the 2000-05 period MPS failed to develop initial individualized educational plans within the required 90-day timeframe; and (4) DPI failed to comply with its oversight responsibilities because it knew MPS was not in compliance but failed to impose sufficient sanctions to bring MPS into compliance.
Turning to the facts upon which the experts’ conclusions were based, the court concluded that the plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that MPS violated Child Find. Based on the testimony about individual situations, the experts’ opinions, and the fact DPI had found MPS in non-compliance, court held that the plaintiffs had met their burden of proof. As for DPI, the court rejected DPI’s argument that any violations were not systemic and that its constant oversight satisfied its obligations under IDEA. While DPI had put in place adequate procedures for monitoring MPS compliance, the underlying problem was the agency’s failure "to put any teeth into its bite." The department "required new procedures, but failed to impose appropriate sanctions when the acronym programs did not produce satisfactory compliance."
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, No. 01-928 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2007)