OCR Investigation Ignores 504 Issues at Fox C-6

It’s hard to believe that it’s only been 10 years since I spoke during public comments at the January 15, 2013 BOE meeting and told Fox C-6 administrators and Fox's BOE:

“It is my hope that you respect others in our community that may speak at this evening’s school board meeting and that the individuals in our school community refrain from making defamatory comments in online forums in the coming days as has been done to me after I have spoken at previous school board meetings. 

Those who are making the defamatory comments have no business teaching our children, running our school, etc. if they are employees of our school district. I believe that they are, because no one other than those present in this room at those past board meetings had knowledge of who was present and what was said. They are simply playground bullies. 

Our district has a no bullying policy but it appears that it does not apply to school officials.”

I pointed this out to Fox’s BOE in 2013 because this type of behavior had been going on since December 2010 when I made my first Public Comment at a Fox C-6 BOE meeting.

There were only 7 visitors in attendance at the Fox's December 2010 BOE meeting.

Online harassment began prior to my speaking at the December 2010 BOE meeting. It began in August 2010, when Fox issued a “press release” in the St. Louis Post Dispatch with the help of Fox’s law firm as noted in Fox’s legal bills that I obtained in 2014 via a Sunshine Law request.

And, the Post Dispatch editor refused to remove those threatening comments that were posted on the “press release” article because of freedom of speech. The threatening comments and other nasty comments were made because we had filed complaints against Fox with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

In May 2014, it became public knowledge from a lawsuit that the defamatory comments posted online in 2012 and 2013 had been traced to the homes of Fox C-6 administrators and a retired assistant principal who was an assistant soccer coach when I played on the Fox High soccer team.

The online comments should have raised red flags for the Kansas City ED OCR attorneys who were conducting a District Wide Compliance Review investigation of Fox to determine whether or not Fox was providing Individualized Health Care Plans (IHPs) to students with disabilities instead of Section 504 Accommodation Plans.

Retaliation or harassment against anyone who files a complaint with ED OCR is a violation of Section 504 law. It’s posted in the Resolution Agreement.

All told, it took the KC ED OCR office 8 years to conduct an investigation to find out if Fox was providing IHPs instead of 504 Accommodation Plans. KC ED OCR already knew they were doing so when they removed our daughter's 504 Accommodation Plan in September 2008 and provided an IHP instead.

As a comparison to the KC ED OCR investigation, it only took the Atlanta ED OCR office 2 years to conduct the exact same investigation of the Memphis City School District which had 107,000 students in March 2010 when that investigation was opened.

Since the KC ED OCR office decided to ignore how Fox was handling Section 504 in the district prior to 2015, it was easy to see why Fox C-6 administrators weren’t held accountable for the actions and why it wasn’t documented in OCR’s March 2018 Resolution Agreement and Letter to Fox. Therefore giving a false impression that Fox was properly following the law.

The KC ED OCR supervisory attorney who reopened the investigation in the spring of 2015 which was originally opened in March 2010, told me during our 2020 phone conversation that ED OCR ignored what had happened at Fox prior to 2015 because “people had moved on” and “it was before my time”. It gives the appearance that school districts are above the law according to the KC ED OCR office because they just look the other way.

Fox is the perfect example of how difficult it can be to get your school district to change and do things like they do in other school districts like post bill payments and board meeting packets online or audio and/or video recording BOE meetings and posting them online for the community. Of course Fox does that sort of thing now, but it took years of requesting them to do so before it actually occurred. It did not happen while Dianne was superintendent. Or, at least not until the very end of her tenure. When I asked for copies of the credit card statements, it led to the very quick departure of Fox's CFO at the time.

I ended up making 22 public comments at Fox C-6 BOE meetings between December 2010 and June 2016.

Sometimes requests for change aren't well received by administrators and/or school board members when things are going on in your school district that they don’t want you to know about or when your BOE is doing a poor job of oversight.

It's a lot easier for the community to help oversee the district and ask questions when information is available to the public.

I also have to point out how disappointed I was when I watched the video after last year's graduation when I saw a Fox C-6 BOE member make a celebratory gesture after switching places with Fox's BOE president, so she could hand our son his diploma.

Hopefully this type of behavior won't happen again at this year’s graduation. Other people noticed it too when I pointed it out to them on the Family Arena video of the graduation ceremony. Perhaps someday, Fox will live up to being a National District of Character.

January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 BOE Meeting Public Comment

Who Was Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights When Fox Signed the 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR?

In 2015, I asked the following question:

“Who’s Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights?”

In 2021, I found the following answer from a January 2019 announcement:

"Josh comes to Mickes O’Toole from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights office in Kansas City, Missouri, where he oversaw civil rights compliance in seven states, including Missouri and Kansas. Josh led the office’s investigative and legal staff in the investigation and resolution of thousands of civil rights complaints arising from issues such as race or sex harassment, student discipline, special education, Title IX athletics, among many others. Josh’s work included reviewing school policies and providing training to assist public schools districts and post-secondary institutions with their compliance with federal civil rights laws."

Who's Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights?

Post Dispatch Article Documented in Fox C-6 Legal Bills as "Press Release"

At the August 23, 2012 REACH Open House at Clyde Hamrick, I had a discussion with one of Fox’s former administrators about some of the issues going on in our district.

Our discussion occurred just days after I had received a cease and desist letter from Fox's law firm threatening me with legal action if I didn’t stop talking to administrators and former administrators as well as school board members at Fox about Section 504 issues and other issues such as in person and online bullying.

The former administrator's response really hit a nerve. Especially since I had just received the cease and desist letter days before which I mentioned during our discussion as well.

The discussion also inspired me to write an article about a Dear Colleague letter on Retaliation Law issued by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in 2013.

The former administrator told me:

"You should pick your battles and I don't think this is one of them you should fight. You've got to think about your parents. This is your home. You don't need to be doing battle here. You should let someone else do it. It's because of who you are and who your family is as to why you shouldn't fight this battle."

I took that as a challenge. The cease and desist letter also fueled my efforts to bring about change in our school district. And, it reminded me of when our former superintendent, Dianne Brown (Critchlow) called my dad into her office to talk about our complaint.

Bullying In the St. Louis Post Dispatch

I was already determined to bring about changes at Fox after Fox and their law firm had an article published in the Post Dispatch in August 2010.

The article's intent was to bully us for filing a complaint with ED OCR. The online title of the article was not the same as the print article. The online article title referenced the 504 Plan as a "Special Status".

The article incited online comments directed at me and my family, including death threats which the Post Dispatch refused to remove from their website. I forwarded the comments to ED OCR and USDA OCR since they were clearly harassing and retaliation for filing complaints with ED OCR and USDA OCR.

The article mentioned the cost of legal fees. The article failed to mention the fact that when the district removes a 504 Plan, your only options, if you disagree with the school's decision are to file for Due Process, file a civil suit against the district in a court of law or file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. The article also failed to mention the fact that we were going to withdraw from the Due Process Hearing so Fox's attorneys decided to file Due Process against us so Fox could settle the disagreement.

PD Article Failed To Document District Wide Compliance Review Investigation

The 2010 Post Dispatch article failed to note important information that they showed us during our interview such as their discovery of the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review investigation of Fox.

Then there was the privacy issue with Missouri DESE

When I was first contacted by the Post Dispatch to interview me for an article, I asked the reporter how she had gotten my name. It immediately threw up red flags considering we were preparing for a Due Process Hearing with Fox. The timing was not a coincidence.

The reporter explained to me that the Post Dispatch made a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with ED OCR to see if there had been any complaints filed against any school districts in our state for students with life threatening food allergies. I'm sure that's something that reporters do all the time. She told me that our complaint was the only one. First, I told the reporter that any complaint filed by a parent or advocate with ED OCR is redacted and would not have identified us.

I also told the reporter that there were other complaints filed against other districts in our state filed with ED OCR by families with life threatening food allergies. Our complaint was not the only one as the reporter had claimed.

Post Dispatch Sunshine Request Leads To Contact Information

The Post Dispatch reporter went on to explain that they found our name after they made a Sunshine Request with Missouri DESE to find out if there were any emails related to the complaint. The reporter explained that our names were contained in emails between Missouri DESE and Fox but that our daughter’s name had been redacted out of the emails.

Missouri DESE failed to protect our identity. Or, maybe it was just really good investigative reporting by the Post Dispatch. It could also be that this was the fight that I shouldn't fight and that was the reason why.

Fox's Legal Bills Documented the Post Dispatch Article as a "press release"

So when I finally received copies of legal bills from the district in 2014 and I saw the bill from 2010 from the law firm that referenced the “press release”, it confirmed how and why the article was written.

I found other articles over the years about parents who had filed complaints filed with ED OCR in other school districts. The same tactic was used against them by the same law firm in order to bully and retaliate against them as well.

The following article from 2013, was written prior to the tracing of IP addresses to Fox C-6 administrator's homes and cell phones. It covers the Dear Colleague Letter sent out to all school districts in the U.S. in 2013.

For some reason, the Kansas City U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has had a lot of trouble recognizing retaliation against parents in our region. It makes a person wonder just how much documentation is needed before it's considered retaliation. Perhaps online defamatory comments traced to administrator homes and cease and desist letters by the school district's law firm isn't enough documentation.

Or, perhaps the KC ED OCR office just didn't have time to read the Dear Colleague Letter regarding harassment and retaliation due to the backlog of complaints in their office.

Dear Colleague Letter On Retaliation Law To School Districts From ED OCR

Fox C-6's March 2018 Resolution Agreement and March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review Update

When ED OCR ignores 7 years of evidence including a Due Process Hearing ruling that was reversed as well as the evidence that initially led to the Washington DC U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) Headquarters request for a District Wide Compliance Review in March 2010, it's easy to see why there weren't any "findings" in the March 2018 Resolution Agreement that Fox signed with the Kansas City ED OCR (KC ED OCR) office.

That's what I learned while speaking with the supervisory attorney who worked on Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review when it was reopened in the spring of 2015. You'll like the reasons given as to why they ignored how Fox was handling 504 issues prior to 2015.

There's no reason to have a Section 504 law if it's not going to be enforced by ED OCR and schools aren't held accountable. And, there's no reason to have OCR offices handling complaints or compliance reviews if it takes a decade or more to resolve them. It would save parents, school districts and attorneys a lot of time, effort and money.

ED OCR's Case Processing Manual (CPM) explains why school districts enter into a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR. The CPM states that "OCR can resolve allegations at any point during the course of the investigation, if appropriate. OCR resolution agreements will be drafted to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws and regulations enforced by OCR."

SECTION 302 - Resolution Agreement Reached During an Investigation

Per SECTION 302, "Allegations under investigation may be resolved at any time when, prior to the point when OCR issues a draft letter of findings under CPM Section 303(b), the recipient expresses an interest in resolving the allegations and OCR determines that it is appropriate to resolve them because OCR’s investigation has identified concerns that can be addressed through a resolution agreement. The provisions of the resolution agreement must be tied to the allegations, and the evidence obtained during the investigation and will be consistent with applicable regulations."

The language in SECTION 302 has been watered down since 2005, to lessen the appearance of legal Non-Compliance when school districts enter into a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR. In 2005, ED OCR's Case Processing Manual stated:

"After the investigation begins, a complaint may be resolved in either of the following ways:

• OCR determines that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion of noncompliance; or
• OCR determines that there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion of noncompliance and the recipient enters into an agreement."

96 Months To Conduct a District Wide Compliance Review of Fox C-6 KC ED OCR's nearly non-existent effort to completing Fox's District Wide Compliance Review teaches other school districts and attorneys that school districts don't have to follow federal law and that any non-compliance issues in a school district will just go away if given enough time and parents or advocates stop checking on OCR's progress of their complaint(s) or an open District Wide Compliance Review of their school district. And yes, it really did take the KC ED OCR office 96 months to complete their Compliance Review of Fox C-6 and determine whether or not Fox was providing Individualized Health Plans to students with disabilities instead of Section 504 Plans.

As a comparison, it only took the Atlanta ED OCR office 24 months to complete a District Wide Compliance Review for the same issue of the Memphis City School District. It took another 25 months after Fox signed the Resolution Agreement in March 2018 for KC ED OCR to complete their review and approval of Fox’s updated Section 504 Manual. It’s the same Section 504 Manual that Fox originally agreed to update by June 30, 2009. But who’s counting days, months, years or decades when it comes to properly identifying students who qualify for a Section 504 plan. Deadlines Allowed to Slip The 504 manual and changes to Fox’s policies that OCR asked for was a real sticking point for the law firm representing Fox at the time. So, rather than hold Fox accountable and live by the terms of the Resolution Agreement, ED OCR allowed deadlines to slip year after year. The KC ED OCR office was doing the best they could to do “vigorous enforcement” of the law. They told me over the years about their staff shortages and people being pulled off to work on other cases. They told me time after time that they hoped to be sending out a “monitoring” letter to the district soon and that they hoped to complete Fox’s Compliance Review in the next several months as I checked on our complaint and Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review between 2009 and 2020. Fox Still Being "Monitored" Speaking of compliance reviews, I recently discovered that Fox’s March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review is still being “monitored” by ED OCR as noted in the compliance review data I received last week from a recent Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Request. My FOIA request asked for the status and purpose of all District Wide Compliance Reviews initiated over the past 20 years in all of the OCR Regional Offices across the country. I made a similar request in 2015 but just for Kansas City and Atlanta offices and wrote about it in 2015. I made the FOIA request so I could compare how long it took the KC ED OCR office to complete compliance reviews compared other offices across the country.

Concerns Regarding Who Would Conduct the Compliance Review In 2010, I emailed the regional enforcement director asking him what office would be performing Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review because I had concerns if the KC ED OCR office was conducting Fox’s compliance review. That’s because the KC ED OCR office had allowed Fox to miss deadline after deadline that Fox agreed to in the May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement. And, not to my surprise, I was informed that the KC ED OCR office would be handling Fox’s Compliance Review. Chief Attorney Concerns One of my other concerns was the fact that the chief attorney in the KC ED OCR office who oversaw complaints and compliance reviews had worked as general counsel for the Kansas City Missouri school district prior to working for ED OCR. When the chief attorney retired after moving up to the director position, I discovered that his successor had also worked as general counsel for the Kansas City school district prior to working for ED OCR. Then at the beginning of 2019, I learned that the acting director at KC ED OCR who oversaw the completion of Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review and the signing of the Resolution Agreement left ED OCR and went to work for the law firm that represented Fox when the District Wide Compliance Review was initiated in March 2010. It’s also the same law firm that we battled with between August 2008 and June 2014 and the same one that sent me a cease and desist letter trying to stop me from speaking to our school board and administrators in our district about our case with ED OCR. Fox changed law firms in June 2014 when the online cyberbullying scandal made national news. ED OCR Ignores What Occurred Prior to 2015

So, when I found out from the supervisory attorney during our May 2020 phone call that the Kansas City ED OCR office ignored everything that had occurred prior to 2015 in their compliance review investigation, it was easy to see why ED OCR didn’t note any adverse "findings" such as retaliation by school district administrators cyberbullying parents for filing OCR complaints (which is a violation of Section 504 law) and giving Individualized Health Plans to students instead of Section 504 Accommodation Plans for those students who were qualified for one and requested one. My telephone conversation with the supervisory attorney justified my concerns of allowing the KC ED OCR office to conduct Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review. The supervisory attorney told me that she didn’t know the history of the review before she was assigned to work on it. It seems like the KC ED OCR office would have problems handling investigations if they don't pass on information to others. She said that they, "Basically opened the investigation from anew and took a fresh look at it because we realized that time had passed and what they did five years ago wasn't going to be relevant as what was happening currently. So, we basically did a new Compliance Review with new information and looked at how over time it changed." She also noted that, "The district has had a lot of turnover with personnel. There's a new law firm that's representing them now. The new current law firm has, I'm not trying to sound like I'm putting a plug in for them by any means, it's been on time with regards to submitting the data we've requested. They've been cordial. I don't feel that they've hidden information from us." She explained that ED OCR reinitiated contact with Fox in the spring of 2015 and started requesting additional documents and going through the policies and procedures and that the results of that investigation is what led to a Resolution Agreement that was signed by the district in March 2018. She informed me that ED OCR was currently monitoring the district. She told me, “I regret that the case and this review took as long as they did. That is not what should happen to any person who files a complaint with our office but I can’t explain the length of time prior to my involvement.“

Vigorous Enforcement? So, if you’ve ever filed a complaint with the KC ED OCR office and wondered what happened to it, maybe ED OCR really is understaffed and they really are hoping to work on your complaint real soon. It’s that “vigorous enforcement” of the law by ED OCR that we can count on to hold our school districts, school district attorneys, administrators and school boards accountable for their actions. Then again. Maybe not!

Fox C-6's March 2018 Resolution Agreement and District Wide Compliance Review Letter

A Lesson for School District Administrators

During the Critchlow era at Fox C-6, one of the biggest problems I recognized and tried to bring to the attention of our school board and some of our retired administrators was the lack of honesty, integrity and transparency.

As I’ve been working on articles to address some of the issues that were swept under the rug for years, I sometimes find that I’ve already documented the issue years ago.

As a principal in our district is set to retire at the end of this school year, I thought it would be a good idea to point out why it’s never a good idea to tell parents in an email that:

“I think we have come up with a great plan and I’m feeling very confident that we will be able to handle anything that comes our way!!!!”

and then a year later when things on the “great plan” weren’t followed, tell the parents during a 504 team meeting that the email you sent them contained “just my notes” and that the items in the “bulleted list” that was sent “weren’t actionable items”.

From a parent’s perspective, this is one of the quickest ways to destroy a parent’s trust in a school leader.

An article I wrote in May 2016 documented this topic in more detail. My article covered several other issues that occurred in our district at the time as well, like the state audit. It's also why I’ve had parents reach out to me over the years thanking me for documenting what we went through in trying to get a 504 plan for our daughter. It's important for the community to know the facts instead of what they were led to believe.

It's also a great example as to why it’s important to have a written 504 Accommodation Plan instead of an email from a principal or just an Individualized Health Plan (IHP). 

Individualized Health Plans are not legally binding agreements and therefore aren't enforceable like a written 504 Plan. That’s why school districts don’t like 504 plans.

This example is also the very reason why the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in Washington D.C. opened a District Wide Compliance Review investigation of Fox C-6 in March 2010.

The District Wide Compliance Review looked at whether or not Fox was issuing Individualized Health Plans to students with disabilities in our district instead of providing them with 504 Accommodation Plans. Considering the fact that Fox had recently taken away our daughter's 504 Accommodation Plan and provided us with an Individualized Health Plan in 2008, it was very obvious that it was happening at Fox.

In March 2010, a District Wide Compliance Review investigation was opened for the very same issue in the Memphis Tennessee School District.

The biggest difference between the two investigations is that it only took 22 months for the Atlanta Georgia Ed OCR office to complete their investigation of the Memphis Tennessee School District and issue a Resolution Agreement.

It took the Kansas City Ed OCR office 96 months to complete the investigation of Fox C-6 and issue a Resolution Agreement.

It makes you wonder what the difference is between the two OCR offices.  I can assure you that I looked into what those differences were.

You can find my 2016 article here:

Trust Me I'm a School Administrator

Changing Your School District's Culture Is Not An Easy or Fun Task!

As school board elections are approaching again on Tuesday April 6th, I’ve been looking back at some of the articles I’ve written over the past 10+ years covering some of the issues in the Fox C-6 School District that needed to be addressed.

School board candidates could learn a lot about just how difficult it is to change the deep rooted culture of a school district and how much push back a person can get when asking for change.

Cease and Desist Letter

In August 2012, I was sent a cease and desist letter for my efforts to bring about more transparency at Fox and bring Fox into compliance with Section 504 Law. In the spring of 2013, three more parents in our school district were sent cease and desist letters. An article was written about the cease and desist letters in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. 

Defamatory Posts For Speaking at Board Meetings

Then there were the defamatory comments posted online about me that were traced to some of our administrator’s homes and a cell phone. The online posts would appear within hours of making Public Comments at a Fox C-6 school board meeting.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch article linked below covers the cease and desist letters that Fox C-6 sent to parents in the district.

The article notes that former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow said:

 "everyone has the right to criticize the district but not spread untruths"

From the get go in dealing with our former superintendent, she made false statements at one on one meetings, board meetings and in emails to me and our school board and even in the news, which have been well documented.

The Post Dispatch article also noted the following quote from former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow:

"You don’t have the right to make up lies and defame someone’s character,”

Apparently, the statement above did not apply to her or her husband.

Our former superintendent should have been more interested in improving transparency and following federal law instead of anonymously posting defamatory comments online that were directed at parents who were trying to hold her and our school board accountable.

Letters sent to Fox dissidents highlight school tensions

STLTODAY.COM

School Board Members Associated With 504 Issues in the District

It’s interesting to note that 5 of our current school board members were either directly involved with some of the issues I was addressing in our school district or are related to individuals who were directly involved with those issues such as the removal of a 504 Plan and efforts to get the 504 Plan reinstated. It prompts the question as to why these individuals decided to run for a position on the Fox C-6 Board of Education.

No Audio or Video Recordings of Meetings at Fox

I asked the Fox C-6 school board numerous times over the years during the Critchlow era to audio or video record school board meetings because of the lack of detail Fox's board meeting minutes.

Fox C-6 school board meetings had been audio recorded prior to Dianne Brown Critchlow's time as superintendent. She couldn't explain why they weren't recorded anymore. She said the last time they were recorded was when Jim Chellew was superintendent.

Examples Of What Other Districts Were Doing Compared to Fox

I brought numerous examples to our school board of what other school districts in our area were doing with regards to audio or video recording school board meetings and posting school district bill payments online for the community to review. I asked for audio and video recordings of board meetings because the public wasn’t getting the truth or the facts about several issues in our district. At the time, Fox didn’t post bill payments on the district website which made it difficult for anyone in the community to help with oversight of school district spending. It also made it very easy for some of our administrators to misuse taxpayer dollars.

The responses from our superintendent are well documented in the articles I've written over the years. The article linked to below was posted a year before the ousting of Critchlow and her husband and the demotion of two assistant superintendents. It serves as a good reminder as to how bad things can get when there’s very little oversight by your school board and district employees fear retaliation from administration.

11 Years To Comply With an ED OCR Resolution Agreement

In May 2009, Dan Baker signed a Resolution Agreement in which Fox agreed to update the district’s 504 manual by June of 2009. It wasn’t until May 10, 2020 that Fox’s 504 manual was finally updated and posted on the district’s website. It took Fox more than 11 years to update the district’s 504 manual. It's hard to comprehend, but very well documented.

Kansas City ED OCR Slowed the Process As Well

It took Ed OCR nearly 16 months just to respond to the district with their review of the district’s updated 504 manual. 

Ed OCR had already reviewed the document in 2018 and asked for a few minor changes to the document in the fall of 2018. During that 16 month delay, I made several calls to the Ed OCR attorney who was listed as the contact person for the 2018 Resolution Agreement.

In the summer of 2019, the OCR attorney told me that their office was understaffed but they hope to complete their review of the 504 Manual prior to the start of the 2019-2020 school year. Of course, that didn’t happen. OCR didn’t notify Fox until February 2020 that their recent changes to the 504 manual finally met the terms of the May 2009 and 2018 Resolution Agreements.

ED OCR Failed Students At Fox For More Than a Decade

It would be safe to say that ED OCR’s enforcement of the May 2009 and March 2018 Resolution Agreements with Fox probably wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t kept calling OCR’s directors and attorneys for more than a decade checking on the progress of their enforcement of the Resolution Agreements. It’s a great example of just how easy it is for school districts to get around Section 504 law for years.

I need to write about my conversation with the ED OCR attorney in May 2020 when I asked her why it nearly a decade to complete a simple District Wide Compliance Review and why OCR wasn't following their case processing manual to bring about enforcement.

In the meantime, a lot of legal fees were billed to the district for responses to OCR requests and refusals by district attorneys to change the language in school board policies and the district’s 504 Manual as requested by OCR.

There were also legal fees for 504 meetings, Due Process Hearings and for helping with a "press release" article that appeared in the Post Dispatch in August 2010 after our Due Process Hearing as well as legal fees charged for reading my blog.

In all, Fox spent more than $100,000 in legal fees between 2008 and 2020 because of the removal of a 504 plan and subsequent refusal to reinstate that 504 plan. The amount of legal fees is based upon my review of bill payment records posted online and obtained via Sunshine Requests. The tactics used and the amount of effort to get around Section 504 law was quite amazing.

Superintendent Dr. Nisha Pitel has done a great job over the past couple of years highlighting our staff and students. I was very disappointed when she announced that she would be leaving our district.

Superintendent Dr. Fregeau's Meet and Greet Presentation to the Community

At the same time, I'm very encouraged by the choice of Dr. Paul Fregeau as Fox's next superintendent after watching his meet and greet presentation on Fox's YouTube channel as well as what I found and read on the Decatur Public Schools website. I highly recommend watching Dr. Fregeau's meet and greet presentation.

One significant point during Dr. Fregeau's meet and greet presentation was when he spoke about his integrity and promised the community that he would never embarrass the district.

Dr. Fregeau had done his homework and had either read or heard about the problems that had occurred during the Dianne Brown Critchlow era at Fox and the embarrassment she brought to our community and the Fox C-6 School District.

The July 2013 article linked below documents some of the pushback I received for my efforts to improve transparency in our district and hold people accountable. It also puts into perspective just how much has improved since Critchlow was ousted in 2014.

School board meetings weren't audio or video recorded during Critchlow's tenure. I recorded them when I attended and when I spoke during public comments in order to have an accurate record of what was said at the meetings and the responses I received, if any.

Fox Has a New Website But the Same Old Problems

Fox C-6 Voters Approve $40M Bond Issue - ED OCR Ignores Nearly 7 Years of Investigation Data

It's good to see that Fox's $40M Prop P bond issue was passed by voters last week.

Meramec Heights Elementary and Antonia Elementary have long overdue upgrades needed to bring them into ADA compliance.

New School Board Members Elected

Also, congratulations to our new Fox C-6 school board members. It’s interesting to see that we now have 5 people on our school board member who were either directly involved or are related to someone who was directly involved with the 504 issues that I have been following up on since 2008.

ED OCR Did Not Issue A Monitoring Letter for 16 Months What’s also interesting is the fact that OCR did not issue a “monitoring letter” to Fox C-6 for 16 months after the district submitted a “monitoring report” to OCR.

Fox submitted a monitoring report to OCR on December 12, 2018 with the final changes to Fox's 504 Manual. Originally, Fox agreed to update the district’s 504 Manual by June 3, 2009.

OCR didn't send a "monitoring letter" to the district until April 17, 2020 approving the changes that were submitted to OCR in December 2018. I obtained a copy of OCR’s “monitoring letter” from the district a few weeks ago.

OCR's Delay Was Due To Being "Understaffed"

I contacted OCR to find out what caused the delay. Kansas City OCR’s excuse for the 16 month delay was due to their office being “understaffed” and having to work on new complaints and district wide compliance reviews. It's been the same excuse I've heard for years.

What's odd is that OCR told me last July, that they hoped to complete their review of the changes before the start of the 2019-2020 school year.

Parents and Advocates Need To Know How Kansas City ED OCR Handles Complaints

There’s a lot to cover on this ongoing issue. It’s definitely worth the effort documenting how OCR handles complaints. Parents and advocates need to know just how long it may take their school district to comply with Section 504 and how long OCR can drag out a complaint once it goes into the “monitoring” phase after the signing of a Resolution Agreement.

Fox's Compliance Review Would Make A Great Law Student Research Paper

Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review would be a great example for a research paper for law students as to how OCR conducted a Compliance Review. It took 8 years for OCR to perform Fox’s District Wide Compliance Review. It took OCR 8 years investigate whether or not Fox C-6 was providing Individualized Health Plans to students with disabilities instead of Section 504 Plans.

Before OCR completed their investigation and issued any findings, Fox agreed to sign a Resolution Agreement in March 2018 which closed the complaint and moved it into the “monitoring” phase.

OCR Decided Not To Look at What Occurred Prior To 2015

To top it off, OCR also informed me that what occurred in the district between March 2008 and December 2014 related to the 504 issues wasn’t really looked at because so many people had left the district. It just happens that the law firm that was responding to OCR during that time left the district as well. The law firm was released by the district in 2014 during the Critchlow fiasco.

All I can say is, Wow!

Accountability seems to be a thing of the past.

Who's Watching Over The Office for Civil Rights

Fox C-6 Watchdogs Facebook page and Fox's 504 Manual Available to the Public

The FoxC6Watchdogs Facebook page is now accessible to users who aren't on Facebook.

https://www.Facebook.com/FoxC6Watchdogs

Facebook will prompt you to Log In or Create New Account. However, you don't have to Log In or Create a New Account to scroll through and read the posts.

After scrolling through some of the content on the FoxC6Watchdogs page on Facebook, a large window will popup, prompting you to Log In or Create New Account. When that happens simply click on NOT NOW at the bottom of the window to continue reading post on the Fox C-6 Watchdogs Facebook page.

There's been a lot of content that was posted on Facebook that wasn't posted this blog.

It Only Took 11 Years to Update Fox's 504 Manual 

Recently, I wrote on the Fox C-6 Watchdogs Facebook page about Fox finally get their Section 504 Manual updated and approved by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR).

Just about everyone I talk to about what we've dealt with in trying to get changes made in our school district can't believe how long OCR has taken to do their job. OCR claims that they do "vigorous enforcement" of the law. Perhaps they should come up with a better catch phrase.

One statement I heard a lot over the past 11 years from OCR was, "We're hoping to get it done soon." when I would ask them about the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review investigation. I got the same response when I asked about reviewing the 504 Manual that the district submitted to ED OCR in December 2018.

It took ED OCR five-hundred and one (501) days to do review Fox's 504 manual before issuing a monitoring lettering approving the changes that they agreed to make in the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

I'm glad that ED OCR didn't tell me, We're hoping to get it done someday., because who knows if Fox's 504 Manual would have ever gotten updated and posted online.

At least for now, Fox's 504 Manual is online and can be downloaded by the public.

Fox's Updated 504 Manual
You can download a copy of Fox's new 504 Manual from the district website using the link below:

Fox C-6's Section 504 Manual

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools 504 Manual

Even though Fox has finally posted their 504 Manual for the public, I highly recommend reading the Kansas City Kansas Public School District's 504 manual for comparison. You can find a copy of it using the link below.

The Kansas City Kansas manual has searchable text as well as many more references and examples regarding Section 504.

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools
Section 504 Manual

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools
Section 504 Parent's Guide

In March 2020, I sent the link to the Kansas City Kansas Public School's Section 504 Manual to Fox's 504 Coordinator because I thought it was one of the best examples of a 504 Manual that I had found to date.

Hopefully, in the near future, Fox will make some improvements to our Section 504 Manual. Some of the things that could be improved are:

• Making it text searchable
• Adding a Table of Contents
• Adding more information about Section 504 Law such as prohibiting retaliation
• Adding more examples of students who qualify for Section 504

ED OCR Resources for Section 504

ED OCR published an excellent Parent and Educator's Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in 2016.

The Parent and Educator's Resource guide as has 11 scenarios including one about retaliation related to Section 504. This guide was not available in 2008 when we requested a Section 504 Plan from the district.

Typing in the Appropriate Testing scenario entry below reminded me of when the district's attorney gave us an example of what a district doctor may want to do. He gave us an example as reason as to why we may want to revoke our consent to an independent evaluation by the district. 

Under Section 504, school district's are allowed to hire their own doctor's or specialist to do an independent evaluation.

The district attorney's example as a reason to revoke consent was as follows: If the district's doctor decided that they wanted to hang our child upside down by her ankles for 3 weeks and we didn't want them to do that type of a test, we could revoke our consent for the independent evaluation.

The district attorney followed up his example by letting us know that if we decided to revoke our consent to an independent evaluation, then the 504 process would end here and now. I'm hoping that our school district's attorney at the time (May 2009) isn't reflective of what other parents may have to go through when requesting a 504 plan.

This kind of behavior by a school district attorney didn't reflect well on the attorney nor our school district. I've shared that story many times. I can say that it didn't sit well with me. But, that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Scenarios In OCR's Resource Guide to Section 504

• Scenario 1 - Suspected Disability & Evaluation
• Scenario 2 - Suspected Disability & Involvement of Knowledgeable People 
• Scenario 3 - Disabilities in Remission
• Scenario 4 - Appropriate Testing
• Scenario 5 - Timeframes for Evaluation
• Scenario 6 - Disagreement Over Need to Evaluate
• Scenario 7 - Reevaluations and FAPE
• Scenario 8 - Accessibility
• Scenario 9 - Unjustified Different Treatment
• Scenario 10 - Procedural Safeguards
• Scenario 11 - Retaliation

Ultimately, whether or not your child qualifies for a Section 504 Accommodation Plan is up to the 504 Team at your school.

You can download a copy of ED OCR's December 2016, Parent and Educator's Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools using the following link:

ED OCR's Parent and Educator's Resource Guide
to Section 504
in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Fox C-6's 504 Manual Finally Updated After 11 Years

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 10:03PM, I received an email from Fox’s Section 504 Coordinator informing me that Fox updated the district’s 504 manual and posted it on the district’s website. It’s too bad that the updated manual still didn’t meet the terms of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement. I’d like to know who reviewed the changes in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). It’s taken more than 11 years to make changes to Fox’s 504 Manual and it’s still not correct. Add to that, the fact that you can’t search for text in the new manual. So, parents, staff and administrators are going to waste a lot of time having to read the entire 71 page document to find something unless they have access to optical character recognition software that can turn images of pages into a searchable document. In Friday night’s email, I was informed that Fox had received feedback from ED OCR and that OCR had “approved” the district’s updated 504 Manual. A link to the updated document was included in the email. Here's the link sent to me: https://www.fox.k12.mo.us/departments/special_education Here's a direct link to Fox's webpage where the 504 Manual is listed: https://www.fox.k12.mo.us/departments/special_education/504_manual

Fox's 504 Manual has not been available on the district website until now. Here is a direct link to Fox's 504 Manual in PDF format: (This link may change with updates to the manual.) https://www.fox.k12.mo.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=37088403

Fox Originally Agreed To Update 504 Manual by June 2009 Fox’s Section 504 Manual and Procedural Safeguards document was originally supposed to be updated by June 2009 according to a Resolution Agreement that Dan Baker signed with ED OCR on May 1, 2009. Fox didn’t meet that June 2009 deadline. And, when Fox didn’t meet that original deadline, OCR gave Fox a new deadline. And, when Fox didn’t meet that deadline, OCR gave them another deadline and another and another. After a few missed deadlines, Fox refused to make some of the changes they had agreed to. There was a concerted effort to drag this issue out for years. But, before Fox’s 504 Manual was ever updated, the law firm representing the district was canned when the internet scandal became public involving former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and former 504 Coordinator Dan Baker. However, prior to being canned, the district’s law firm was able to bill tens of thousands of dollars related to the ongoing 504 issues at Fox between March 2008 and June 2014. Getting back to the recently updated Section 504 manual, it’s really interesting that Fox finally got around to updating the 504 manual just one week after I wrote about Fox not updating the district’s Section 504 Manual after 11 years after agreeing to do so. I was quite surprised to see the email from our district’s 504 Coordinator. I didn’t see it until early Saturday morning since it was sent to me at 10:03PM Friday night. I clicked on the link and began reviewing the document to see if the changes had been made as required by the terms of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement. There were at least 3 things that didn’t get updated as agreed to in the resolution agreement. It makes you question who reviewed the change or if the changes were actually reviewed and “approved” by ED OCR. I’ll have to make a Sunshine Request and a Freedom of Information Act Request to see if ED OCR actually approved the changes or not. The March 2018 Resolution Agreement spelled out exactly what needed to be replaced and/or updated in the 504 manual to comply with federal law. It also required including at least two examples of students who would qualify for Section 504. Fox also agreed to increase the amount of time that a parent can file an appeal to a 504 decision from 10 calendar days to at least 90 calendar days. This didn’t get updated in the “approved” Section 504 Manual that was posted on the district website.

The language in Fox’s updated 504 Manual still states: “If a parent, legal guardian or eligible student intends to challenge the action proposed or refused by the District, the parent/guardian or eligible student must file a written request for 504 Due Process Hearing within 10 calendar days from the date of the District’s written notice of the proposed or refused action.” The current name and job title for Fox's 504 District Section 504 Coordinator is not correct. It's no longer the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources. The address for ED OCR is not correct in the updated 504 Manual as spelled out in the Resolution Agreement. I highlighted the required changes in Fox’s March 2018 Resolution Agreement in the screen capture below that are not correct or needed to be changed. I also highlighted where the changes still need to be corrected in Fox’s 504 Manual in the other screen capture below. Perhaps someday, this will get corrected. QUESTIONS OUR SCHOOL BOARD SHOULD ASK I’m hoping our school board members will ask some questions such as: Why wasn’t the March 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR provided to the school board for review when it was originally sent to the district and signed by former superintendent Dr. Wipke in March 2018? (Your school board is supposed to ensure that the district is following the law and the March 2018 Resolution Agreement covers Section 504 law.) Why wasn’t the updated 504 Manual included in BoardDocs and presented as an action item if it needed to be approved by the school board prior to posting it on the district’s website? Who reviewed and approved the 504 Manual at ED OCR if the updated 504 Manual still didn’t meet the terms of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement? I’m also hoping that our school board requires the district to add language prohibiting retaliation to Fox’s 504 Manual similar to what’s included in the Kansas City Kansas Public Schools 504 Manual. The following language is posted on ED OCR’s website about retaliation on their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page which is referenced in Fox’s 504 Manual:

“Retaliatory acts are prohibited. A recipient is prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by Section 504.”

The Kansas City Kansas Public Schools Section 504 Manual addressed retaliation very well. I highly recommend reading the KCKPS 504 Manual for reference. It’s much easier to read and includes a Table of Contents. I’ll keep you posted on the ongoing efforts to get Fox’s 504 Manual updated to comply with federal law.