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

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

Understanding 504 Plans

If you're a parent and your child was medically flagged by your school or school district as someone who possibly needs a Section 504 plan, I highly recommend that you learn about Section 504 before you attend your first 504 meeting. It's important to know what a Section 504 plan is and why it's better than an asthma action plan, allergy action plan, diabetes action plan or an Individualized Health Plan (IHP).

School districts are much more willing to write an Individualized Health Plan (IHP), asthma action plan, allergy action plan or diabetes action plan for your child or student instead of a Section 504 plan. That's because an asthma action plan, allergy action plan or an IHP is not a legally binding agreement with the district whereas a 504 plan is.

You will most likely run into problems when items aren't followed on an IHP, asthma action plan or food allergy action plan. You may end up being told like we were, that the items on "the plan" we were given by the principal were just her notes. She said that they were things that were discussed at the meeting but weren't necessarily actionable items. This was after the fact when things weren't followed that were on the plan that we were given.

That "plan" was provided to us before we knew anything about Section 504 prior to the start of the 2007-2008 school year. Nothing was mentioned about Section 504 in 2007. At the beginning of the 2018-2019, Fox was required to send out notices to everyone in the district informing them of their obligation to Section 504 and child find. The district was required to do so because of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement they signed with OCR. So, everyone in the district should now be aware of Section 504.

Below is an online post from 2005 that's still relevant today. We found the post online after things weren't being followed on the plan that we were given that was not a 504 plan.

Why Not Obtaining a Section 504 for Your Child is a Disservice to Your Child

There is a lot of good information about Section 504 on Understood.org. I posted a link to an article below that will help you better understand Section 504 and how it may be able to help your child/student in their learning environment.

The article on Understood.org is geared towards helping students with ADHD or dyslexia. Section 504 also applies to students with asthma, diabetes, food allergies, seizure disorders and other health impairments. Those specific items were mentioned in the District's March 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR.

I have been following Fox's ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II since 2008 when ED OCR got involved. Their efforts to comply are still a work in progress.

Know Before You Go
It's very important that you are knowledgeable about Section 504 before you attend your first 504 team meeting. Typically, school district attorneys don't attend 504 team meetings. But 12 years ago, a simple health plan was written up prior to the start of school at Lone Dell Elementary. There wasn't any referral for a Section 504 evaluation. The plan was referred to as a Health Plan. As mentioned above, school district's are obligated to perform child find and refer students for a Section 504 evaluation if needed.

Knowing the law may help you call out a district attorney like I did when he made false statements about Section 504 in order to sway the 504 team's decision about whether or not our child qualified for Section 504. This was after the district removed a Section 504 plan in September 2008 arguing that it was not needed since there weren't any reactions at school during a 30 day observation period. The proof that the 504 plan should not have been removed, is the fact that it was restored in August 2014 with the help of ED OCR.

In May 2009, after the district signed a Resolution Agreement to hold another 504 eligibility meeting, I called out the district attorney during that 504 meeting when he stated that "episodic and in remission only applies to people with cancer". I said that wasn't true and that he needed to read the law. His response to me was that we weren't there to discuss the law. He said we were there to decide whether or not the student qualified for Section 504. A decision wasn't made at the meeting anyway because Dan Baker wanted to get an independent evaluation which schools are allowed to do. It's a very good tactic for dragging out the process which is why Fox was required to make a change to their 504 Manual from the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

Educators can't make good informed decisions when they're being misinformed. Those types of tactics certainly make you question the integrity of the individuals involved in the process and leaves you with very little respect for the people or the process.

Understanding 504 Plans

The link below provides a list of differences between Individualized Education Programs and Section 504 plans. The link is from Understood.org:

The Difference Between IEPs and 504 Plans

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

After I spoke during Public Comments at the June 2013 Fox C-6 School Board meeting regarding an open Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and a Final Agency Decision from the USDA Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) finding Fox C-6 and Missouri DESE non-compliant with Section 504, ADA and the ADAAA, Superintendent Dianne Critchlow made the following statement:

"We are in compliance with every complaint to date and one is in litigation and we cannot discuss it." 

If you read the Monitoring Letters issued by the ED OCR and the Final Agency Decision from USDA OCR using the links below, you'll find that Superintendent Critchlow's statement was FALSE.

Why would our Superintendent say that we cannot discuss these issues?

The ED OCR Monitoring Letters and USDA OCR's Final Agency Decision don't reflect well on her, the school board or our district. And, if she made a statement at the school board meeting it must be true.

If Superintendent Critchlow is truly keeping our school board informed on these issues, I would think that the board would want to know why it has taken our District more than 4 years to meet the obligations of the Resolution Agreement they signed with ED OCR in May of 2009. Our school board should also be asking why our District is spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees rather than correcting their documentation and complying with the law.

I'm sure our Superintendent had no idea that ED OCR would find a lot more problems in our District than just not wanting to properly follow Section 504 law. If you read the ED OCR Monitoring Letters below, you'll find that there are a number of problems with the district's policies and handbooks complying with Section 504, ADA and ADAAA. It was such a systemic issue that the Washington D.C. Office for Civil Rights decided to conduct a District Wide Compliance Review of Fox C-6.

The District Wide Compliance Review was initiated in March of 2010 by ED OCR. Fox's attorneys argued that ED OCR was picking on our District and harassing them. Needless to say, ED OCR denied their request to rescind the District Wide Compliance Review. However, the District has done a very good job of dragging things out while spending a lot in legal fees.

Nearly 4 Years and Counting Despite Reassurances
It should be noted that Fox didn't accomplish what they originally agreed to do by August 31, 2009. By reading through the original Resolution Agreement and then the Monitoring Letters and attorney responses, you'll find that our District informed ED OCR that it would have the policies and procedures updated by July 31, 2010 after the district didn't meet the original 2009 dates.

In 2012, the District informed ED OCR that they planned on having the updated policies and procedures completed by July of 2012. Well, that didn't happen either! So, here we are in July of 2013 and the District still hasn't updated their documentation.

Now that the USDA OCR has asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for assistance in bringing Fox C-6 and Missouri DESE into compliance, it appears to demonstrate the fact that our school district and many like ours simply ignore the federal agencies. I think this is mostly due to the fact that ED OCR "allows" the District to "voluntarily comply". And, since ED OCR just issues new deadlines and doesn't actually perform any enforcement, school districts ignore them. It will be interesting to see how much money our school board plans to allow our Superintendent to spend on these issues before they decide to comply with the rulings and fulfill their obligations of the Resolution Agreement.

Below you will find some of the documentation showing the District's compliance problems. Our Superintendent has a tendency to just throw out statements thinking or hoping everyone believes her.

I provide the documentation that shows that what she says isn't always true!

Letters from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the USDA OCR document the fact that our district is NOT in full compliance.

Fox and Missouri DESE Found Non-Compliant by USDA OCR
The complaints I spoke of at the June 2013 board meeting are not in litigation. Only the Department of Justice can litigate a complaint with the District. Currently the USDA is working with Missouri DESE hoping that MO DESE will bring our district into compliance with the USDA's Final Agency Decision. If MO DESE fails to do so, the DOJ will then step in to bring about compliance. At that time, the District may possibly end up in litigation. But, at the moment, these complaints are not in litigation. Superintendent Critchlow throws out the litigation claim to so she can keep things behind "closed doors" rather than speaking about them in the public session of the board meetings.

UPDATED: On Friday July 12, 2013, Missouri DESE's assistant legal counsel Kris Morrow sent an email stating that "It remains DESE's position that 504 Compliance within the public schools falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights." following questions sent to Karen Wooton, Missouri DESE's Food Nutrition Director regarding the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found MO DESE non-compliant.

Apparently, Ms. Morrow hasn't read the legally binding agreement that Missouri DESE signs with the USDA each year in order to receive their federal funding from the USDA. Ms. Morrow would be well advised to read the April 2011 memo from the USDA OCR office which MO DESE has posted on their website.

Not to rule out any possibilities! But, perhaps Superintendent Critchlow is simply having a difficult time accepting the fact that the Monitoring Letters from ED OCR and the USDA Final Agency Decision aren't accolades for our District. If you're curious, give them a read and see what you think. How would someone document this on their resume as an accomplishment?

The links below open the documents from ED OCR, USDA OCR and our school district attorneys to get an understanding of how compliant or non-compliant the Fox C-6 School District really is with these agencies. Our school district has certainly invested a lot of money in legal fees just to keep from filling out paperwork like 504 Plans for students in our District!

Documentation From Federal Agencies Contradicts

Superintendent's Statements

May 1, 2009 Fox C-6 School District Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

December 8, 2009 ED OCR Issues First Monitoring Letter to Fox C-6 for May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement

February 26, 2010 Fox C-6 District Attorney Teri Goldman Response to ED OCR's December 2009 Monitoring Letter and Conference Call

March 11, 2010 ED OCR Complaint Notification to Fox C-6 Regarding Due Process Hearing Officer Selection

March 19, 2010 Fox C-6 District Wide Compliance Review Notification Letter from ED OCR

March 29, 2010 Fox C-6 District Attorney Teri Goldman's Letter to Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary of Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education Regarding District Wide Compliance Review

April 7, 2010 ED OCR Enforcement Director Randolph Wills Notifies Fox C-6 that District Wide Compliance Review Will Proceed

April 21, 2010 Fox C-6 Makes Request for Due Process Hearing

August 18, 2011 - Fox C-6 and MO DESE Found
Non-Compliant with Section 504, ADA and ADAAA

This ruling was handed down from the USDA after reviewing the Due Process Hearing that was put on by the District and heard by the District attorney's former law associate who was hired by the District as a Due Process Hearing Officer. The same attorney was hired by the District in January 2009 as a Due Process Hearing Officer for another case in the District and the hearing officer ruled in favor of the District on that case too. I wonder how truly "Fair and Impartial" former law associates are in hearing cases? You'll have to read the USDA's take on the Due Process Hearing Officer's decision.

August 18, 2011 USDA OCR Final Agency Decision Finding Fox C-6 and MO DESE Non-Compliant

March 13, 2012 - Fox C-6 Still Non-Compliant per ED OCR
ED OCR points out a lot of flaws in our District's student handbooks and school board policies that need to be updated. They also point out the fact that there are at least 7 different people identified in the District documentation as the District's 504 Coordinator on page 12. One of the persons listed hasn't worked for the District since 2008. I have to say that ED OCR is fairly thorough in their reading over of  our District's Policies, Procedures and Student Handbooks.

March 13, 2012 ED OCR Monitoring Letter Update Sent to Fox C-6 Documenting Obligations Still Not Satisfied per the May 2009 Resolution Agreement


August 3, 2012 - Fox C-6 Still Non-Compliant per ED OCR
More of the same but with a little more detail of what needs to be corrected starting on page 10 of the document.

August 3, 2012 ED OCR Monitoring Letter Update Sent to Fox C-6 Documenting Obligations Still Not Satisfied per the May 2009 Resolution Agreement


April 25, 2013 - Fox C-6 Still Non-Compliant per ED OCR
The following April 25, 2013 ED OCR Monitoring Letter informed the Fox C-6 School District that it still has not met its obligations from the May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker. There have been 4 monitoring letters sent to the district since May 2009. Deadlines for were given and never met. Therefore Fox C-6 IS NOT in compliance as Superintendent Critchlow stated at the June 2013 board meeting.

It seems that our district has a serious problem with being able to update its school board policies and regulations. It has now been 3 years since our district informed ED OCR that it would complete the updates of board policies and regulations.

How long does it take to update documentation?

ED OCR is still waiting for board policy updates and changes to its manuals. ED OCR has allowed the District to "voluntarily comply" for more than 4 years. The District has still not complied. Why not?

Perhaps it is time for our school board to ask Superintendent Critchlow why the District under her leadership hasn't been able to meet the obligations of their May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR.

It has also been nearly 3 years since District attorney Teri Goldman informed ED OCR that they should be completing the board policies and procedures updates by July 31, 2010. Taxpayer dollars are being spent by our District and ED OCR for failing to comply with the May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement. Perhaps it's time for our school board to start looking for new leadership in our school district.

April 25, 2013 ED OCR Monitoring Letter Update Sent To Fox C-6 Documenting Obligations Still Not Satisfied per the May 2009 Resolution Agreement

Due Process Hearing Officer Selection Concerns
Would you be concerned if you were going to be forced to go through a Due Process Hearing against your school district and the school district gets to choose the Due Process Hearing Officer to hear the case? Would you be concerned if the school district chose a Due Process Hearing Officer that was a former law associate of the school district Attorney representing the school district in the Due Process Hearing? How about if you found out that the attorneys co-represented school districts together at law firms against parents? Would you be concerned if you found out that the two attorneys were presenters at a convention answering questions on the rules of Due Process and discussing topics such as "Testifying in Due Process Hearings"?

Section 504 Procedural Safeguards typically state that the parent or the school district can request a Due Process Hearing to resolve disputes with Section 504 decisions. The safeguards state that the school district will choose the Due Process Hearing Officer. The Due Process Hearing Officer is typically an attorney who acts like a judge to hear both parties on a matter and render a decision. A hearing officer is supposed to be "Fair and Impartial". A quick Google search of the hearing officer chosen by the District immediately raised red flags because the hearing officer chosen by the District was Mr. John Brink who was a former law associate of District attorney Teri Goldman in two different law firms. The choice of a hearing officer can easily sway the outcome of a hearing. I know that hearing officers are supposed to be "Fair and Impartial". But, as proof of my concern, I found several cases where Mr. Brink and Ms. Goldman while working for the same law firms co-represented school districts on cases. What was more troubling was the fact that Mr. Brink and Ms. Goldman were listed together as presenters at the 2007 Missouri Speech Language Hearing Association (MSHA) convention speaking about the rules pertaining to Due Process with one of their topics listed as "Testifying in Due Process Hearings". This is why we filed a complaint regarding our concerns over the school district's choice of the Due Process Hearing Officer with ED OCR.

District attorney Teri Goldman responded to ED OCR investigating our concerns. In her response to ED OCR she stated, "Since 2002, Ms. Goldman occasionally sees Mr. Brink at professional conferences (perhaps 1-2 times per year) and does converse with him at such conferences. Beyond that, she has no personal relationship with him. Since 2002, Ms. Goldman and Mr. Brink have not served as co-presenters contrary to the Simpson's representation. Neither Ms. Goldman nor the District know the basis for the Simpson's assertion in that regard." That's why I submitted the convention schedule brochure PDF document from the 2007 MSHA conference to ED OCR documenting our concern along with a photo of Mr. Brink and Ms. Goldman seated together at the conference luncheon. These documents were found on the MSHA website along with the URL links. Shortly after ED OCR reviewed our complaint and responses from the District, Ms. Goldman and Mr. Brink, the documents were removed from the MSHA website where they had been posted for nearly 3 years. I found it odd that the documents disappeared so quickly after ED OCR investigated our concerns.

So, is Ms. Goldman's statement true about not serving as co-presenters with Mr. Brink? I kept a copy of the MSHA Convention brochure and photo from the luncheon just in case. The session description can be found on page 24 of the program schedule from the following link:

2007 Missouri Speech-Language Hearing Association (MSHA) Convention Schedule

Below is District attorney Teri Goldman's response to ED OCR regarding our concerns of the Due Process Hearing Officer selection. Mr. Dan Baker stated that he was originally concerned after I brought it to the attention of the District and ED OCR that Mr. Brink and Ms. Goldman were former law associates. However, after speaking with District attorney Teri Goldman and she assured Mr. Baker that Mr. Brink would be fair and impartial, Mr. Baker was no longer concerned about the choice of the hearing officer. Apparently, Mr. Baker didn't know that Ms. Goldman and Mr. Brink were former law associates during a January 2009 Due Process Hearing that Mr. Baker was involved in with another family at Fox that was decided in favor of the school district.

March 22, 2010 Fox C-6 District Attorney Teri Goldman's Response to ED OCR Regarding Due Process Hearing Officer Selection Complaint

Fox C-6 Superintendent Salary Update Mid-Year Pay Hike?

From a Missouri Sunshine Request to MO DESE for all salaries for the Fox C-6 school district from 1990 to present, I found that the salary reported for superintendent Dianne Critchlow was NOT was reported to me by the school district last August for the 2012-2013 school year. MO DESE salary data provided by the school district reports superintendent Dianne Critchlow's salary at $246,824 instead of the $238,785 that was reported last fall. It should be noted that the salary reported to DESE does not include other perks such as a school SUV, insurance or annuity payments. We will have to wait for the June 2013 School Board Packets to be released this week to see how much Dianne Critchlow's salary will be for next year. Her new salary should be listed with the other salary schedules.

I also now know why then Dianne Brown informed me via email back in 2011 that my information was incorrect about how much her current husband Jamie Critchlow was paid for the 2009-2010 school year. According to MO DESE, school districts are required to report the amount that the person would have been paid if they worked the entire year in their position even if they started late in the year. So, her husband didn't make the full $98,589 since he worked as a teacher for a couple of months prior to being promoted to Director.

August 2012 Fox C-6 Superintendent Salary Report

So, why was there an increase in the middle of the school year?

Since school salary data is public information, I am providing this information for the public so they can start asking our school board why they keep providing such LARGE pay increases to our superintendent during poor economic times. Also, you should ask our school board for some justification for those raises comparing our district to other districts under our superintendent's leadership. It has taken more than 2 years for our school administration and school board to work on and adopt new school board policies. Those policies have still not been updated. In fact, some of the policies were required to be updated to meet Federal law in May of 2009 by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). The district still hasn't updated those policies for ED OCR even though the district signed a Resolution Agreement with the ED OCR to make the changes in May 2009. It would seem to me that a school superintendent making over $250,000 with benefits would be able to accomplish the simple things like updating policies under their watch. It also appears that our school board doesn't consider holding people accountable very seriously if those simple things can't be accomplished.

You may also want ask our school board why the Fox C-6 School District refused to meet with the USDA for a Compliance Review in March 2013. Our new Food Nutrition Services Director Kelly Nash would have been the one to meet with and discuss with the USDA the compliance review. Our district was found Non-Compliant by the USDA in August 2011. However, the USDA did meet with MO DESE since they are required to keep Missouri schools compliant.

I have read on Topix posts stating that our school district is not in jeopardy of losing any federal funds based on my previous articles on the Fox C-6 Watchdog site. Federal agencies really don't like to withhold funding federal funding from school districts. But, it is in their guidelines to do so when a district fails to come into compliance with the law. It will be interesting to see how the district handles becoming compliant now that the USDA is working with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ, the USDA is attempting to work with MO DESE to bring the district into compliance. If MO DESE fails to bring our district into compliance, the DOJ will be ready to step in and conduct their own investigation and enforce compliance. Time will tell. 

It does make you wonder what our school board members are thinking doesn't it?

It's time to find a new superintendent who can get the job done!

Superintendent Critchlow's Salary Data:
2013 - $246,824
2012 - $228,573 - Dianne Critchlow
2011 - $215,276
2010 - $207,393
2009 - $192,586
2008 - $164,428
2007 - $152,068
2006 - $137,859
2005 - $108,663
2004 - $105,749
2003 - $102,633
2002 - $98,005
2001 - $28,529

2000 - $73,248
1999 - $68,879 - Dianne Brown
1998 - $61,273

1997 - $57,822

1996 - $33,018

1995 - $30,488

1994 - $26,268

1993 - $24,075

1992 - $22,906

1991 - $21,315 - Dianne Brewer

Director of Bridges Jamie Critchlow's Salary Data:
2013 - $116,103
2012 - $107,813
2011 - $101,884

2010 - $98,589

If You Find Wrong Doing In Your School District, Report It!

If you find wrong doing in your school district, it is your duty as a citizen to report it.  That's what I was told to do by the Missouri DESE Compliance Officer back in 2008 after a phone conversation as to what was going on in the Fox C-6 School District.   The MO DESE Compliance Officer told me that I should file a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) because it appeared to him that our school district was not properly following the law.  However, if you file a complaint, you should be prepared to be retaliated against by your school district.  Well, at least that has been my experience and the experience of a couple of other parents that I know that have filed complaints or expressed their concerns with our school district, school board or school administrators.

MAY 2009 - Department of ED OCR Resolution Agreement
After 4 Years, Fox C-6 Has Yet To Fully Comply With Resolution Agreement
If our school district is truly following the law, then you should ask Mr. Dan Baker, assistant superintendent and the Fox C-6 School District 504 coordinator as to why the school district has still not fully complied with the Resolution Agreement that Mr. Baker signed in May of 2009 with ED OCR.  It has been nearly 4 years since Mr. Baker signed that agreement and the district has still been unable to comply with it.  There are several areas of the agreement that the district has not yet fully complied with.  One part of the agreement required the school district to update its policies and procedures, student handbooks and district website to more properly document and comply with federal laws.  It is my understanding from ED OCR monitoring letters, that this has still not been completed as of January 1, 2013.  The district has not yet updated their policies and regulations for simple grammatical and typographical errors. I first officially reported the errors to the school board at the April 2011 meeting.  Jim Chellew was documented in 2004 school board meeting minutes stating that school board policies and regulations are reviewed every year.  However, many policies and regulations still have typographical and grammatical errors that have existed since they were first adopted in November 1997.  As an example, one policy still has the text {common district name} in the policy where the template was not updated with the school district name.

MARCH 2010 - Washington DC Department of ED OCR District Wide Compliance Review
Fox C-6's District Wide Compliance Review Is Still An Open Investigation
Next, you should ask our superintendent and school board why the Fox C-6 School District is still undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review that was initiated by the Washington D.C. ED OCR Office in March 2010.  The District Wide Compliance Review WAS NOT initiated by a parent complaint as the school district and the school district attorney would like you to believe.  Mr. Dan Baker testified during a Due Process Hearing while being questioned by the school district attorney that it was.  However, documents from ED OCR show that this is not true.  District Wide Compliance Reviews are ALWAYS initiated out of the Washington D.C. Office.  The District Wide Compliance Review was requested by the Kansas City ED OCR Office to the Washington D.C. Office as a potential school district to perform a District Wide Compliance Review on.  Our school district was then chosen by the Washington D.C. ED OCR Office to undergo a District Wide Compliance Review after reviewing information provided by the Kansas City OCR Office.  Our U.S. Senators were notified of the District Wide Compliance Review in 2010 by the Washington D.C. office.


The District Wide Compliance Review is still open and ongoing.  I have asked our school board about the Compliance Review on multiple occasions.  I even received a response from the school district attorney telling me that there is nothing to report to the public about the review at this time because it is still ongoing and in doing so would possibly interfere with the compliance review.  If other law firms across the country are informing their school districts that Fox C-6 is undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review and teaching them how to avoid one, it would seem that it is only our school district that does not want the public to know about it.  It should be noted that Fox C-6 was only 1 of 2 school districts out of more than 20,000 districts across the country to be chosen in 2010 to undergo a District Wide Compliance Review for the area of concern that our school district is being investigated for.

AUGUST 2011 - USDA OCR Final Agency Decision Ruling
Fox C-6 and state of Missouri Found Non-Compliant With Federal Laws, Regulations and Guidelines
Next, you should ask your school board and superintendent why Fox C-6 and subsequently the entire state of Missouri was found to be Non-Compliant by the United States Department of Agriculture Office for Civil Rights Office (USDA OCR) Food Nutrition Services department in August 2011 with ADA, ADA AA, and Section 504 Laws and the USDA's Federal Regulations and Guidance.   Our school district filed an appeal with USDA OCR in November 2011.  However, the USDA denied their appeal in 2012 and has since been in involved in multiple discussions with the school district and the school district attorneys in an effort to bring our school district and the state of Missouri into compliance with Federal laws and regulations.  From information obtained from the USDA OCR Office, Fox has not yet complied with the USDA OCR Final Agency Decision as of January 1, 2013.  It has been nearly 18 months since the USDA Final Agency Decision ruling was sent to the school district and the school board.  Perhaps the school district does not want to comply with the ruling.  The USDA OCR Office has now handed the case over to the Department of Justice for enforcement.

As a patron of the school district, I will report wrong doing and will follow up with the federal agencies and the school district.  It is your taxpayer dollars that the school district is using to fight the federal agencies rather than comply with their requests.

You must ask yourself, why is our school district unwilling to comply with Federal laws?

Why would school district attorneys make Freedom Of Information Act Requests of the USDA for all correspondences between myself and the USDA?

My research has uncovered many issues and concerns.  In 2008, I forwarded a link to the USDA OCR Office of a video I found online that was made of a presentation given at the 2008 Missouri Annual School Law Seminar.  The video covered Section 504 Law and was being presented by school district attorneys from our state.  The presentation was educating Missouri school officials on Section 504 law.  The USDA OCR Office found the training in the video to be alarming and they considered some of the information being presented in the video to be incorrect according to Federal laws.  The video prompted training for the state of Missouri which was initiated by the USDA Colorado regional office.  No one from the Fox C-6 School District Food Nutrition Services department attended the training.

Speaking at School Board Meetings Results in Retaliation

I have spoken at several Fox C-6 school board meetings over the last couple of years.  The first time I made Public Comments at a Fox C-6 school board meeting was at the December 2010 meeting.  There were only 7 people from the community in attendance at that meeting.  My speaking at that board meeting resulted in defamatory comments being posted on the TOPIX.COM website.

The first TOPIX.COM post was made shortly after the board meeting that night. Since I was the only person who spoke at the December 14, 2010 school board meeting, the following post on TOPIX.COM was directed at me.

"I went and almost made a public comment then decided that in reality all of this chatter and such is really is none of my business. There was one guy who talked but I thought he was kinda MR so I didn't take him serious. Other than that.... Nothing. no matter what I type on here to stir the pot I truly don't have any proof or knowledge of these rumors. I am sorry for being so belittling and dumb. I just hope they can't get my ISP number and find out who I am."

Post #271 on the Fox High School Superintendent - TOPIX.COM thread

The 7 people from the community, not including myself, that attended the meeting that night were two students who spoke at the meeting and their parents, Kim Robertson, the reporter from The Leader newspaper and a representative from an accounting firm. So, that only leaves school board members and some of Fox's administrators who were in attendance that night, who would have known that I had just spoken at the meeting.

I certainly doubt that the post was made by any of the community members who attended the meeting. However, it makes one question who would have posted the comment or conveyed the information to the person who actually made the post:

There was another post made on TOPIX.COM that was directed at me and my parents a week after the December 14, 2010 school board meeting.  The comments were mostly directed at me, but they indirectly referred to my parents.  I didn't realize that expressing concerns to our school board about their hiring practices would result in such comments.  However, once you've gone to a school board meeting at Fox C-6 and expressed your "concerns within the district" as my Public Comments were documented in the December 2010 school board meeting minutes, you become branded for life by the powers to be at the Fox C-6 School District.

I made my second Public Comment at the April 2011 school board meeting.  This was the meeting that had everyone under shelter for quite a while as a severe storm with tornado warnings blew through the area.  It was so windy that you could see the outside walls of the service center flexing in and out.  You can read about the questions that I presented to the school board at the April 2011 school board meeting in my May 17, 2011 email to the school board.  In that email, I documented the fact that Jamie Critchlow had approached me at the April 2011 school board meeting and told me that I was simply trying to, "stir the pot". It's funny how the post that was made on December 14, 2010 used the same phrase of "stir the pot" that Mr. Critchlow made to me at the April 2011 school board meeting.

I don't recall any specific retaliatory comments that were made on TOPIX.COM shortly after my April 2011 board meeting presentation, but there had been quite a few made between January 2011 and April 2011 and several were quite vulgar in nature.  I guess when you start asking questions of our school board and the school administrators, that a little intimidation usually puts an end to those types of questions.  But, I did not let them deter my efforts.

I next spoke at the August 2011 school board meeting and this time I started off by complimenting the school board for having the school district correct the 10 Elementary Student Handbooks that weren't up to date after downloading the Lone Dell Elementary Student Handbook from the district website.  I found that the Lone Dell Student Handbook was dated for the 2009-2010 school year and had the 2009-2010 calendar of events in it.  Lone Dell parents were told at Open House for the 2011-2012 school year that the student handbooks weren't going to be printed anymore and that they could be downloaded from the website.  I complimented the board after being scolded by Ruth Ann Newman, the school board president at the time, for never complimenting the school board for the great job they were doing.  So, after thanking them for correcting the handbooks which is required by state law to be kept up to date, I moved on to my concerns.

The next school board meeting that I made a Public Comment at was the December 2012 school board meeting.  I asked the school board again as to why they have been unwilling to publish the board meeting packets on the school district website like they do in other school districts.  That was the only concern that I presented at that school board meeting.  However, there were two other presenters at the December 2012 school board meeting that also voiced their concerns.  One was an NEA representative from Festus who spoke to the school board.  The other was a parent who expressed his concern over the recent hiring of our school board president Linda Nash's daughter-in-law as the Food Services Director for the school district with a salary of $65,336.  He expressed his concern after reading about it in the Arnold-Imperial Leader newspaper.  The newspaper article stated that her daughter-in-law Kelly Nash only had a high school diploma and had been an assistant manager at McDonald's for the past 17 years and that the school district was going to give her 2 years to obtain her degree or certification.  I didn't express my concerns to anyone on the school board or administrators that night about the recent hiring practices.  However, I did express my concern about the textbooks shortage in the middle schools though in discussions with school board members and administrators after the school board meeting.

So, I was quite surprised to learn that on Saturday December 15, 2012, there were new defamatory comments posted about me and my family on TOPIX.COM again.  I guess that the powers to be at Fox do not share the same interest I have in ensuring that our school district keeps the community informed about what they are doing by publishing the board meeting packets on the district website and exercising transparency to the fullest degree as one of our board members Dan Smith touted in his most recent election campaign for Missouri State Representative.

So, why do people attack my character and make defamatory and derogatory comments about me on the TOPIX.COM website?

I guess they attack me and my family because between November 2010 and January 11, 2011, I posted a total of 18 comments on TOPIX.COM which were all facts regarding my concerns in the Fox C-6 School District.  I found the TOPIX website while researching information in relation to issues going on in the Fox C-6 school district.  I found many people posting their concerns about Fox on the TOPIX website.  And, it was my opinion that the school district was not keeping the public informed or informed in a timely manner.  School board meeting minutes aren't posted until after the next school board meeting.  So, the school district has more than a month before anyone in the community really finds out about it.  So, I thought I would post the facts that I had researched.  I verified my facts before I posted them as I always do.  However, my postings were met with many negative responses and those responses could have only come from a very few people that were in the know of what had been going on in the school district if you know what I mean.

So, for everyone in the know at the Fox C-6 School District which would include school board members and administrators, I recommend that you re-evaluate your thinking because I am quite sure after reading many of the posts that were slanderous in nature and directed at me and my family that you believe that I have been posting on TOPIX.COM for the past 2 years.  Sorry, but you are ALL quite wrong in your thinking.  The comments on TOPIX don't count the attacks against me and my family that were posted by people in the know on STLTODAY.COM after the August 2010 Post Dispatch news story that I believe was written for the school district to make it appear as if they were properly following the law.

For our school board members and school administrators to even consider thinking that I would make the comments that people have pointed out as being made by me simply shows a lack of knowledge of my character, integrity and intentions.  You may wish to attack my character because in doing so, it makes you feel better about the things that have been going on in our school district for the last several years.  But, the comments that have been posted online and directed at me have been beyond belief.  The comments really do reflect poorly on the people that have posted them.  I never asked TOPIX to remove them as I wanted to make sure that when the truth did start coming out as to what has been going on in our school district that the community would be able to see first hand how a National District of Character treats the patrons and citizens in the school district for voicing their concerns.  Over the past couple of years, I have forwarded many of the comments on to our U.S. Senators and Congressman as well as to the USDA OCR and U.S. Department of Education (ED) OCR and the Department of Justice.  I guess everyone in our school district hasn't read Policy 0215 as they don't seem to be following it very well.  Perhaps it would also be a good idea for our school board members to read their Code of Ethics policy as well.

It certainly has been quite a learning experience over the last 4+ years when I began researching all of the issues and concerns going on in our school district.  I grew up in the school district and my parents devoted their entire professional careers to the district.  I also learned a great deal about the law as well as the founding of our countries education system and a lot about human nature.  I can say that I am a much more informed and better person for it.  It is definitely not what I had planned on doing with the thousands of hours that I have put into this project.  I can only hope that we soon get a completely new school board and a new administration who can show respect to the community and to the teachers and staff that work within our school district.

On January 11, 2013, it will have been two years since I made my last post on TOPIX.COM.  I think that an apology from those that have been posting negative comments about me and my family is in order to both me and my family and the community.  Your comments really do reflect very poorly on our school district!

Fox C-6 Board Member Touts Bringing School District to National Recognition

Cheryl Hermann is running for Jefferson County Council – District 2 in the November 6, 2012 election.  Ms. Hermann recently stated in the October 25, 2012 edition of The Leader newspaper that people should vote for her because, “My experience working collaboratively as a school board member, helping to bring Fox board from ineffectiveness, controversy and lawsuits in 2000 to a nationally recognized school district in 2012.”  Ms. Hermann did not say what kind of national recognition that the school district received.  But, a Google search for “Fox C-6 504 Compliance Reviews” will find presentations from across the country where Fox C-6 has been recognized nationally as being chosen as one of two school districts out of the entire nation that are undergoing a Discrimination Review being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for ensuring access to appropriate services for students with medical and health conditions and impairments such as food allergies and diabetes.  This is definitely an honor to have been chosen as not too many school districts undergo District Wide Compliance Reviews nationally.  To save a little time, I have included one of the top results from a Google search from the Nashville Public Schools website: (www.mnps.org/AssetFactory.aspx?did=60645).

This was a presentation given by a law firm at the Spring Forum 2011.  You will be able to find Fox C-6 on slide #30 titled Current OCR Disability Discrimination Reviews.

Fox C-6 was informed of their impending District Wide Compliance Review in March 2010 by Russlyn Ali, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.  The District Wide Compliance Review is still ongoing as the district attorneys have notified me in the past when I made inquiries to the school board regarding this issue.  I also made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information pertaining to the results of the Compliance Review.  At this time since the Discrimination Review is still ongoing and there is nothing to report according to the FOIA request response.

How long does it take to do a Compliance Review?

I would like to note that it is a fact that the Compliance Review is being conducted even if the district has not publicly acknowledged this information.

Another interesting Google search is for “Fox C-6 504 Resolution Agreement” which will also find presentations from across the country which documents a Resolution Agreement signed by the school district on May 1, 2009 which has an LRP publication number of (109 LRP 54751 (OCR 2009)).  Here is a direct link to one of the presentations discussing the Resolution Agreement at a national level and can be found on the Utah State Office of Education website: (www.schools.utah.gov/sars/DOCS/disability/emer504.aspx).

In the Resolution Agreement the district agreed to update its 504 Manual, policies and procedures to remove references to mitigating measures and to incorporate a definition of a person with a disability that is consistent with the ADAAA.  Revisions will include but not be limited to, defining 'major life activities' as they are defined in the ADAAA and removing references to any court decisions that were specifically rejected by the ADAAA.  Additionally, it was identified by ED OCR that district policies and student handbooks identified at least 7 different contacts as the Section 504 coordinator for the district.  One of which has been retired since 2008.

You may ask how long does it take for the district to update its documentation as requested?  School board members Cheryl Hermann and Dan Smith should be asking questions as to why it is taking the district so long to produce these documents?  Does it truly take more than 3 years to update documents in our school district?  This responsibility should also fall on the shoulders of the superintendent.  Does this demonstrate effective leadership or management skills?  It has already been more than 6 months since the 'completely overhauled' school board policies, regulations and forms were released for review.  The district informed ED OCR that they would be providing updated policies to ED OCR by August 28, 2012 as part of the Resolution Agreement after failing to meet previously set deadlines informing ED OCR that the update policies had to first be approved by the school board.  The school failed to meet that deadline and ED OCR extended the district deadline another 2 months.  Perhaps Cheryl Hermann and Dan Smith can explain why these deadlines are consistently not being met?

So, it seems that national recognition can have different meanings for different people.  And certainly the amount of legal fees spent in making corrective actions and challenging the U.S. Department of Education and USDA Final Agency Decision should be recognized as part of Ms. Hermann’s, “experience and proven actions as an elected official on the Fox school board.”  Those legal expenses can be found in the school board packets which contain the Check Register listings for payments made to vendors that are approved each month by the school board.  You simply need to know the name of the law firm or other law firms that have been involved in order to total up the cost to the taxpaying public.  Legal expenses have now exceed well over $200,000!

Ms. Hermann is running on the idea that she is “A Voice Of Reason and Common Sense!”  Is it Common Sense to fight the U.S. government with local taxpayer dollars?  Wouldn’t it have been much cheaper and easier for the school district to simply comply with Federal Laws rather than continue spending taxpayer dollars on legal fees?

I recently learned that a different attorney from the school district law firm has to get up to speed on these matters as the current one is retiring.  At least that was the reason given this time by Karl Menninger from the Kansas City U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) office monitoring the Resolution Agreement in a recent email.  However, this was the same reason given to Senator Roy Blunt’s office by the KC OCR office in May 2012.  It begs the question as to how long does it take to get up to speed?  Attorneys are needed to help review and help produce documentation that ED OCR has been requesting from the district since May 2009?  Luckily for the school district, ED OCR graciously continues to provide the district with new deadlines each time it doesn't meet them rather than take enforcement actions or reopen the investigation like their regulations allow them to do.  Per an email from Rosanne Shepherd of Kansas City ED OCR, “OCR is continuing our efforts to allow the District to comply with the voluntary agreement.  The District has not indicated they refuse to comply with the agreement, therefore, at this time OCR has not decided if it will reopen the investigation or to move to enforcement.  OCR will continue to monitor the District’s compliance with the agreement and will keep you informed of monitoring activities.”

Mr. Dan Smith another Fox C-6 school board member should also take credit for helping bring this type of national recognition to the Fox C-6 school district since he has been a school board director since April 2008 before all of this occurred.  By the way, Dan Smith is running for Missouri State House of Representative in District 113.

Maybe Dan Smith would be interested in answering your questions about spending your taxpayer dollars regarding these matters?

So, what kind of National Recognition would you like to see for Jefferson County?