1. Blackman/Jones v. District of Columbia Presented By Sadiyya Rockett, Ayanna Mackins, and Diane Robinson Assignment 1: Landmark Case - 9/3/14 SPED 504 MAT FALL COHORT University of the District of Columbia

2. Presentation Agenda A.Overview: Facts of the Blackman and Jones Class Action B.Key Terms for Understanding C.Laws violated by DC Public Schools D.Sequence of the Case E.Conclusion/ Q&A

3. In the mid nineties, DCPS experienced high budget deficits. In response, DCPS delayed and CUT education services throughout the district, including special education services. A. Overview: Basic Case Facts

4. Many special education service providers were not paid timely compensation, and in some cases not paid at all. Children with transportation services were not picked up to go to school. Others were denied entry and sent home from specialized private placements. Some children referred for evaluation did not receive evaluations or determinations of eligibility for special education services. Others were denied due process, an opportunity to dispute eligibility decisions. A. Overview: Basic Case Facts

5. DCPS had the perfect mix for a bad concoction A. Overview: Basic Case Facts

6. B. Key Terms: Special Education Process

7. B. Key Terms: Due Process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F5U8iBcchE

8. The Blackman/Jones case is a combination of cases where evaluations, services, and/or due process was denied for individual children with disabilities: Mykeisha Blackman v. District of Columbia Public Schools And Jones v. District of Columbia Public Schools B. Key Terms: Class Action

9. The combined cases became a class action civil suit; several families with the same grievances were represented under the umbrella of one case. Some children in the class also have their own attorneys. As a class action, the families worked together to submit violations committed by DCPS to the court. B. Key Terms: Class Action

10. A REMINDER: EAHCA (1975) P.L. 94-142 is a federal law that provides: Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for disabled children Protection of rights of children with disabilities and their parents Assists States and localities to provide funding and guidance States must Assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities Source: Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975 C. Laws Violated: Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142)

11. IDEA ADDED ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING PROCEURAL SAFEGUARDS & DUE PROCESS C. Laws Violated: Review of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

12. Based on the evidence presented, the judge determined that DCPS violated the protected rights of children with disabilities, namely by: Not providing services to students with disabilities; Not providing timely evaluations for students referred for special education, Not providing due process for parents with complaints; and Not having processes in place to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of services provided to students with disabilities. D. Sequence of The Case

13. DCPS was found liable for the violations. The plaintiffs in the class action were awarded over 1 million dollars in legal fees. DCPS immediately appealed the decision. DCPS claimed the award exceeded DCPS’ legal obligation, based on case precedent. Citing Petites v District of Columbia, DCPS claimed that each family should be awarded a cap, a limit of less than $30 dollars per family and $2000 in legal fees. D. Sequence of The Case

14. LITIGATION LEGAL FEES (PETTITES) D. Sequence of The Case

15. DCPS was eventually found liable for the original amount; Petites was not applicable. A 2006 consent decree set specific goals for the city to address the needs of both current and future students with disabilities. The city agreed to eliminate a backlog of more than 1,000 decisions by hearing officers, immediately provide services to which the students are entitled under the IDEA, and to create a transparent process to evaluate and monitor implementation. A citywide database tracking SPED actions was created to ensure compliance with the decree. D. Sequence of The Case

16. CONSENT DECREE MAKING IT RIGHT LEADERSHIP REORGANIZATION D. Sequence of the Case: Fulfilling the Decree, Creation of OSSE and the OSE

17. D. Sequence of the Case: DCPS Responds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ACx86C6PI

18. D. Sequence of the Case: Blackman Jones Database https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/oda-training-resource- center/home/blackman-jones

19. Conclusion Q & A