Parents Attack Decree on Special Education

In a standing-room-only hearing that was at times angry and at times tearful, more than 70 parents and advocates for disabled students complained to the Los Angeles Board of Education on Monday that a pending legal agreement fails to adequately protect their children.

The proposed consent decree, aimed at averting a drawn-out courtroom battle over special education, promises to phase in extensive reforms to the system that educates 65,000 students in the Los Angeles district. It calls for a new computer system and administrator, but leaves most other specifics to a team of district officials and outside consultants.

Critics say the settlement process falls short because it gives insufficient power to the very people who stand to gain or lose the most: disabled students and their parents.

“I’m here because my son is unable to defend himself against this slam-dunk on his future,” said Tony Austin, whose 6-year-old brain-damaged son attends a special education school in the San Fernando Valley. “You’ve had two years to work on this. . . . Parents have had two months.”

The decree relies in part on a report by two educational consultants hired by the district to evaluate special education as part of an effort to settle a 1993 lawsuit filed on behalf of a learning-disabled high school student. The lawsuit later was expanded to a class-action suit to include all special education students, with disabilities ranging from emotional to mental and physical.

Most of the parents who testified Monday said they want to ensure broad options are available for disabled children, but their concerns revolved around their personal choices.

Those who favor mainstreaming fear that the consent decree will allow wholesale movement of disabled children into regular classes without providing adequate training and support services to help them succeed.

Those who send their children to separate special education schools or classes fear those alternatives will dwindle in the decree’s push for integration, a trend that has occurred in some other districts, including San Diego.

Two clear threats of counter suits also were made Monday. The president of the California Council of the Blind said his organization will sue unless it receives assurances that the district’s school for the blind, Frances Blend School, will remain open.

A group of parents and advocates calling itself RESPECT took a more moderate stance, requesting more time to provide input to the district. The proposed settlement is due to be filed in U.S. District Court by March 1.

If a two-month extension is not granted, RESPECT is prepared to pursue legal remedies, ranging from testifying against the settlement to filing a counter suit, said Carlos R. Holguin, attorney for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which is representing RESPECT.

“As a member of this class, I feel I’ve been excluded,” said RESPECT member Dixon Gray, whose 7-year-old daughter, Allison, has cerebral palsy and is integrated into a regular education classroom. “For a class action, we seem to be an outcast class.”

RESPECT claims the district contacted only 59 parents during the writing of the consent decree, although the American Civil Liberties Union--one of two organizations representing the plaintiffs--has said the consultants and attorneys talked to more than 3,000 parents during the settlement process.

On Monday, ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum described the outcry at the meeting as “healthy,” saying the three public hearings called for in the decree are a starting point to open the reform process to more people.

“All we’re trying to do is make sure there are full and rich choices for all children,” Rosenbaum said. “Neither side has any reason to worry.”

The hearings continue at 5 tonight at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys and at 5 p.m. Wednesday at Banneker Special Education Center in South Los Angeles. The school board will then meet in closed session to incorporate its comments and those from the public in the decree before it is filed with the court.

On Monday, speaker after speaker criticized the district for having an inadequate special education system, but most also lauded district officials for recognizing their errors and moving to change rather than fight.

Although the suit has been likened by attorneys for the district and the plaintiff to civil rights for the disabled, some who spoke Monday described that comparison as naive.

“Disability should never be equated with race,” said Maria French, a special education teacher who has cerebral palsy. “Disability is not . . . a source of pride, rather it is a struggle to live with.”

French, who teaches language arts at Widney High School, a special education campus, said she favors including special education students in regular classrooms where possible, “but if it doesn’t work, I don’t want that kid to become the classroom pet.”