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

Did Comments Linked to the Baker's Residence Violate Section 504 Law?

When I saw the first news article about Dan and Angela Baker being allowed to return to work at Fox C-6, I thought it was a joke. They had been put on paid administrative leave on June 4, 2014. Being allowed to return to work with just a "slap on the wrist" sets a really poor example for our students and our community for a National District of Character.

To say that I was disappointed by the Fox C-6 school board's decision to allow them to return to work would be an extreme understatement. Since I was the person targeted by at least one defamatory post linked to the Baker's residence so far, the boards decision just seemed extremely disrespectful. 

One of many comment linked to the Baker's residence was posted on Topix within a couple of hours after I spoke at the January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting. I even stated in my Public Comments that night that I was hopeful that no more online defamatory comments would be posted against me and others in the community who voiced their concerns. I have voiced my concerns to our school board during Public Comments at school board meetings 14 times since December 14, 2010. I have asked questions about the federal investigations and District Wide Compliance Review and USDA Non-Compliance.

Both Dianne Critchlow and Dan Baker have responded on occasion to my questions dismissively.

Why would they not want the public to know about non-compliance issues that falls under their responsibilities?

Dan Baker's Position in the District

Since Dan Baker is the assistant superintendent of elementary education at Fox C-6 and is Fox's Section 504 Coordinator, his online comments were even more inappropriate because of his position. Posting comments online about parents in his position should be grounds for dismissal. His comments violate Section 504 Law which prohibits retaliating against anyone advocating for civil rights in a school district.

Dan Baker and Dianne Critchlow have both been directly involved with OCR investigations dating back to 2008 being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR). I have personally been dealing with Mr. Baker and Mrs. Brown-Critchlow on issues in our district since 2008. So directing comments against me for my efforts is retaliation. That's why I was extremely surprised when I was provided information that linked defamatory comments posted on Topix to Dan Baker's residence considering his position in our school district and his direct involvement with OCR complaints being investigated by ED OCR and USDA OCR.

I wasn't surprised by the comments linked to the Critchlow's residence. Information posted in comments from their residence was only known by a few top administrators and the cease and desist letters were requested to be sent by Superintendent Critchlow.

It's also disappointing to know that I spoke to many school board members and sent them emails with documentation regarding these issues since 2008 as well. It appears to me that they did nothing to stop it or even investigate the issues. Now they are having to scramble to rebuild the trust of the community.

Fox's School Board Needs to Learn About Section 504 Law

Our school board members need to learn about Section 504 Law and what is required of our district. They need to learn why comments like those posted by administrators in our school district in charge of federal programs or are responsible for overseeing those in charge of those programs should be a major concern.

I recommend that our Fox C-6 school board members and the public read the following Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights that was published on April 24, 2013. A link to that letter can be found below.

The Fox C-6 School District has become the "poster child" that this Dear Colleague Letter was intended to educate. Superintendent Critchlow has been keeping the district's OCR investigations and non-compliance violations from the public for years. So no one really knew that the district was being investigated other than those that didn't want the public to know.

Now that the Fox C-6 taxpayers and others in our school community have learned first hand how some of our school district administrators retaliate against parents in our school district, I hope they start holding our school board accountable for the actions of our administrators.

Dear Colleague Letter

from the

U.S. Department of Education's

Office for Civil Rights

I wrote about the Dear Colleague Letter from ED OCR in May 2013 as well. You can read about it in this post:

Dear Colleague Letter On Retaliation Law from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out for the Bakers and our school district as more information becomes available.

Online News Stories About the Bakers

The following news stories were published on Monday July 21, 2014 regarding the Baker's being allowed to return to work amid the internet scandal in our school district.

KMOX News Story:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/fox-school-board-takes-action-regarding-dan-baker-and-angie-baker/

KMOX Link to Fox C-6 Press Release:

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/press-release-bakers-7-21-14.pdf

Link from KMOX to other news article:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/06/09/fox-school-district-parents-fed-up-with-online-bullying-drama/

Post Dispatch Article:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/two-fox-administrators-linked-to-nasty-online-comments-keep-their/article_1420dd2f-bc9a-58e9-94bc-332c75f7570c.html

Fox 2 News Story

http://fox2now.com/2014/07/21/two-fox-school-district-administrators-keep-jobs-after-online-controversy/

KSDK News Story

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/07/21/fox-c-6-employees-return-after-cyberbullying-suspension/12952911/

KMOV News Story

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Suspended-Fox-School-District-employees-reach-settlement-agreement-267961101.html

KTRS News Story

http://www.ktrs.com/two-fox-schools-employees-keep-jobs-after-scandal/

Some Investigative Reporting Would Reveal Systemic Problems

You have to wonder why it would take a school district more than 5 years to comply with a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR).

You may also wonder why it would take more than two years before a school district would start working towards becoming compliant with the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) federal regulations and guidelines after being found non-compliant in August 2011.

So, why does it take so long for a school district to meet the obligations that school district administrators agreed to do when they signed their name on a Resolution Agreement that was dated May 1, 2009?

Fox C-6 isn't the only school district in the country that's signed a Resolution Agreement that is still being "monitored" by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). School districts have been signing Resolution Agreements with ED OCR for years with the understanding that once the district agrees to and signs a Resolution Agreement, the case that was being investigated by ED OCR goes into a "monitoring" status.

What does "monitoring" mean?

This typically means that ED OCR will "monitor" the district's progress on meeting the obligations that the school district and ED OCR mutually agreed that the school district would do in the Resolution Agreement by occasionally sending out monitoring letters to the school district informing them of their progress in meeting those obligations. The Resolution Agreement typically spells out in detail what the district agrees to do in order to become compliant with Federal laws and regulations. A Resolution Agreement also specifies dates that the district agrees to complete the items spelled out in the agreement. The school district and ED OCR mutually agree upon the dates before the district signs the agreement as well.

Most cases investigated by ED OCR are closed in less than 180 days. So, you have to wonder why Fox C-6 is still being "monitored" for a Resolution Agreement that district administrators signed on May 1, 2009.

So, why hasn't Fox fully complied with a Resolution Agreement that was signed more than 5 years ago?

Well, for starters, when a school district doesn't meet the deadlines that they agreed to in a Resolution Agreement, ED OCR simply extends the deadline and continues to "monitor" the school district. ED OCR checks in with the school district when they don't meet the new deadline and simply sends the district an updating monitoring letter with a new deadline telling them to meet the new deadline. It may be a year before ED OCR checks in on the district. If the district hasn't met their agreed upon obligations, ED OCR sets a new deadline again and the cycle continues.

You're probably wondering, how long is this allowed to continue before the federal agency enforces an agreement?

That's a really good question. An ED OCR attorney told me that they have cases that have been in "monitoring" status for more than 10 years. So it's no wonder why districts can get by with doing little to nothing in meeting their obligations in a Resolution Agreement. It would seem that if ED OCR actually enforced their Resolution Agreements by providing consequences for a school district for not meeting their deadlines that ED OCR wouldn't have a case load that may take decades or more to close out.

It seems pretty simple. But, there's a lot of red tape that the federal agencies have to go through in order to use their only true method of enforcement that they have and that is the removal of a school district's federal funding. In order to remove a school district's federal funding, it ultimately has to be approved by Congress. That's probably why school district administrators don't seem too concerned when they receive letters informing them that their school district has been found Non-Compliant by a federal agency. They simply inform their school board that they received a really long letter from a federal agency and that the attorney found several mistakes in the letter. Don't worry, the attorneys will take care of it.

Perhaps the Missouri School Board Association's training that all new school board members are required to attend doesn't go into much depth about the federal laws that school district administrators are supposed to follow. That's just my opinion based upon conversations that I've had with several school board members over the last 6 years. So, it's no wonder when a school board isn't too concerned with the fact that the Fox C-6 School District was found Non-Compliant by USDA OCR in August 2011. It also hasn't been that much of a concern that the district hasn't been able to meet the requirements of an ED OCR Resolution Agreement that was signed by district administrators in May 2009. And, it probably hasn't been much of a concern that the Fox C-6 School District has been under a District Wide Compliance Review by ED OCR since March 2010.

It's certainly easy for school district administrators to get by for years without having to meet the obligations that a district agrees to do with federal agencies. It's also very easy for them to ignore letters of non-compliance.

Should not meeting these obligations or being found non-compliant by federal agencies be a concern for our community or our school board?

Does not meeting these obligations violate school board policy?

How long should federal agencies extend deadlines in Resolution Agreements before they enforce them?

There's been a huge paper trail generated by the federal agencies as they have been investigating and "monitoring" the Resolution Agreement and non-compliance findings in our school district over the past 5+ years. One would think that by having some of the highest paid administrators in the state of Missouri that they would have been able to manage to come in compliance and fulfill the obligations of the Resolution Agreement they signed by now.

I covered this issue before in a July 2013 article titled:

Documentation Contradicts Superintendent Dianne Critchlow's Statements at June 2013 Board Meeting!

Perhaps now is a good time for someone to begin looking into why the Fox C-6 School District still has an open District Wide Compliance Review from 2010 and why the district is still being "monitored" by ED OCR for a Resolution Agreement that was signed by district administrators back in May 2009. 

A google search for Resolution Agreements will reveal many more cases across the country. You can also find ED OCR's Case Processing Manual and read about out how they are supposed to handle their investigations and case monitoring.