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

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'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.

2016 Fox C-6 Community Survey Results Presented at December Board Meeting

The results of the recent 2016 Community Survey were presented to the school board at the December 20, 2016 Fox C-6 School Board meeting by Patron Insight who conducted the survey.

The December 20, 2016 school board meeting audio is available on the district website allowing you to listen to the presentation. I listened to the audio presentation to hear the results presented below. Patron Insight told the school board that they would provide the district with a PDF copy of the results to be posted on the district website for the community the day after the board meeting.

The audio of the December 20, 2016 Fox C-6 school board can be found using the link below which can be found on the school district website. The presentation of the survey information begins around 5 minutes into the audio:

December 20, 2016 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Audio

At the bottom of this post is a link to the contract from Patron Insight who conducted the 2016 Fox C-6 Community Survey. The cost of the survey was $16,900. The contract was awarded at the October 18, 2016 Fox C-6 school board meeting.

The 2016 Community Survey questions were made available to the public on the district website starting December 2, 2016 and was closed sometime before December 15, 2016. Dr. Wipke sent out an email to parents in the school district about the online survey on December 2.

The Community Survey results presented to the school board at the meeting only included the results from the 400 phone interviews that were conducted by Patron Insight.

Only 281 surveys were completed using the online community survey. Patron Insight is still processing the 281 responses that were completed using the online survey and will include those results in their final report to the school board.

It took nearly 2000 phone calls in order to complete the 400 phone surveys. The phone interviews were only conducted in entirety of taxpaying head of house held individuals living within the district.

Below are some areas of interest pointed our during the presentation from the survey results:

Number One Area The Districts Needs To Improve Upon
Management of tax dollars was the number one area that citizens taking the survey felt that the district needed to improve upon.

Patron Insight stated that management of tax dollars is one of the top answers in just about every school district surveyed.

82% of those surveyed believed that the district was headed in the right direction.

Where Do People Get Their Information About the District?(Ranked in order)
1 - Friends and Neighbors - 81%
2 - Leader newspaper - 78%
3 - Teachers - 52%
4 - Administration - (% not mentioned)
5 - Board - (% not mentioned)
6 - District's website - 41%
7 - Principals - (% not mentioned)
8 - School websites - (% not mentioned)
9 - Media and local radio stations - (% not mentioned)


Of those surveyed:
142 - Current student families
108 - Past student families
150 - Never student families


Potential Tax Increase Related Questions
There were three questions on the survey that were related to a "what if" potential tax increase to get a idea as to how much of a tax increase the community would favor related to rebuilding or expansion projects for school buildings, upgrading of the security systems, funding of additional teachers, support staff members, social workers through the district and College and Career Specialists at each high school as well as insuring that the salaries for teachers and other staff members were competitive with neighboring school districts and help with recruiting and retention.

One of the ideas presented in the rebuilding projects outlined is to completely replace with new schools - Antonia Elementary and Seckman Elementary. The survey question stated that both of these schools have significant issues due to the age of the buildings and both are dealing with overcrowding. Antonia Elementary would be rebuilt on the same campus as Antonia Middle School, while Seckman Elementary would be rebuilt on the same campus where the current school is today.

Another proposed project is to tear down and then rebuild the classroom wings at Fox High School, to make the classrooms more effective for today's educational needs.

Another proposed project is to add classrooms at Ridgewood Middle School and Antonia Middle School, to address the growing student population at both of these schools.

In the tax increase related questions, three different potential tax increases were presented as "what if" questions on the community survey. They were posed as potential tax increase amounts per year based upon the "fair market value" of a $150,000 home. The amount of tax dollar increase would affect what could be achieved out of the items proposed.

Of the 3 potential tax increase related questions:

• 51% would be in favor of a $313 per year tax increase
• 52% would be in favor of a $228 per year tax increase 
• 56% would be in favor of a $142 per year tax increase

Potential Tax Increase Questions as presented on the survey:

21. What if, at some point in the future, the district proposed a ballot issue would allow the district to complete most, if not all, of the projects we have just been discussing, and it resulted in a tax increase of about $313 per year, or about $26 a month, for the owner of a $150,000 home in the school district. If an election on such a ballot issue were held today, would you…

- Strongly favor
- Favor
- Oppose
- Strongly oppose
- Don't know

22. What if, instead, the ballot issue allowed the district to complete many, but not all, of the projects we have just been discussing, and it resulted in a tax increase of $228 per year, or about $19 per month, for the owner of a $150,000 home in the school district. If an election on such a ballot issue were held today, would you…

- Strongly favor
- Favor
- Oppose
- Strongly oppose
- Don't know

23. What if, instead, that ballot issue allowed the district to complete some, but not many of the projects we have just been discussing, and it resulted in a tax increase of $142 per year, or about $12 per month, for the owner of a $150,000 home in the school district. If an election on such a ballot issue were held today, would you…

- Strongly favor
- Favor
- Oppose
- Strongly oppose
- Don't know


Survey Takeaways
One of the comments that I have heard more than once about the survey, is that the community is not going to approve any tax increases until our former superintendent is held accountable for her actions.

The audit results documented that taxpayer dollars were used by our former superintendent to purchase personal items as well as on overpay her husband for a position that he was not qualified for.

It's been nearly two and a half years since a state audit was requested of the Fox C-6 School District. The results of the audit weren't made public until May 2016 and patrons and taxpayers are still waiting for accountability for what was uncovered in the audit.

Rebuilding the trust of the community is important to passing a tax increase. Not holding public officials accountable for their actions does not go very far in rebuilding the trust of the community.

Does that mean that future tax increases for our school district rely upon the decisions of prosecuting attorneys?

Below is a link to the contract from Patron Insight that the district approved and awarded at the October 18, 2016 school board meeting:

2016 Patron Insight Community Survey Contract

UPDATED! Fox C-6 Pay Scales and Raises Explained by Fox CFO

ARTICLE UPDATED at 6:00PM with information provided by Fox CFO John Brazeal

This evening, I received an email from Fox CFO John Brazeal informing me that my original article was inaccurate. Mr. Brazeal provided the following explanation so I could correct my inaccuracies informing me that I had been fooled by vocabulary word choices.

Thank you to Mr. Brazeal for providing the following detailed explanation as to how our district's pay scales work and what is currently being done to align our district's pay scale as our school district moves forward.

"There are 2 types of pay increases: (1) step increases, meaning moving up one step on the pay scale, and (2) cost-of-living increases, meaning adjusting all the wage or salary amounts on the pay scale.

The complaint of the person that sent you the email is not that she didn’t receive a step increase in pay rate, but rather that a cost-of-living adjustment was not applied to the pay schedule so that classified employees would receive both a step increase along with a cost-of-living increase. And yes, I did state that cost-of-living adjustment to the pay schedules are unlikely as long as there is no growth in district revenue. It was stated that eligible employees would continue to receive step increases. 

You should know that all employee groups are treated in similar fashion. For 2016-2017, none of the pay plans or pay schedules for any employee groups received a cost-of-living adjustment. In other words, the same pay schedules for 2015-2016 were renewed for 2016-2017 with the exception of a few changes, such as a decrease in the range for certain administrative positions and an increase in the pay range for school nurses. With the same pay plans in place, the following procedures applied to step increase movements for 2016-2017: 

Teachers that are not at top-of-scale on the teacher pay schedule will receive a step increase in pay in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% for 2016-2017. Teachers at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale on the teacher pay schedule will not have an increase in pay. 

Classified staff that are not at top-of-scale on the classified pay schedule will receive a step increase in pay. The classified staff within the first 15 steps of the schedule will receive an increase in pay ranging between 2.2% and 3.2%. Classified staff within the last 10 steps of the schedule will receive pay increases in the range of 0.5%. Classified staff at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale on the classified pay schedule will not have an increase in pay. 

Administrators that are within the first half of the pay range for their position received a 2.0% increase in pay. Administrators that are within the second half of the pay range for their position received a 1.0% increase in pay. Administrators that are at the top-of-scale or above the top-of-scale of the pay range for their position will not receive an increase in pay."

[Original Article Below Posted]
Concerns were brought to the attention of the school board, local news stations, the Leader, myself and JeffCo Penknife over the weekend via email regarding pay freezes for classified staff at Fox C-6.

Classified employees were told that they would not see a cost of living raise until the district gains back its integrity with the community at which that time the district would ask for tax money from the taxpayers to then be able to reward classified employees with a cost of living raise.

Facing a pay freeze and and increasing health insurance costs has been a concern for our district's classified employees (bus drivers, food service, maintenance workers, aides, etc.).

The concern from the employee / taxpayer to the Fox C-6 Board of Education was the fact that the Fox C-6 Board of Education voted to approve raises for administrators at the February 16, 2016 school board meeting for the 2016-2017 school year while classified employees (who make the lowest wages) in the district are on a pay freeze.

The board meeting agenda item 7.1 Administrator Contracts from the February 16, 2016 school board meeting has the 2016-2017 Administrator Salaries listed in the Administrator Modifications PDF document for the school board to approve.

From a transparency standpoint, the Administrator Modifications report that was provided to the school board and the public did not include the 2015-2016 administrator salaries. The Administrator Modifications report only listed the new salaries that become effective on July 1, 2016.

In the past, I recall seeing salary modifications reports provided to the school board that listed current salary and the new salary. It certainly makes it much easier to compare the amount of raises being given.

You can view the BoardDocs Agenda Item 7. 1 for Administrator Contracts from the February 16, 2016 BOE meeting and the Administrator Salary Modifications report using the links below.

BoardDocs - Agenda Item 7.1 - Administrator Contracts

BoardDocs - 2016-2017 Administrator Modifications

While You're Waiting for Fox's State Audit To Be Released!

While you're waiting for the Missouri State Auditor's office to release the results of the Fox C-6 audit, you may wish to read the state auditor's report of the Lee's Summit School District which was released in February 2014. The Lee's Summit state audit will give you an idea of what an audit report looks like. The last state audit of Fox C-6 was completed in 2002. I wrote about that audit back in 2013. The link to that audit on the Missouri State Auditor's website has been moved and is no longer valid.

Why check out the Lee's Summit school district audit?

Well, the Lee's Summit superintendent and school board president and several board members are currently under fire by the citizens of Lee's Summit. Citizens are upset after it was brought to their attention that the superintendent was dating one of the attorneys for the school district and the superintendent was given a new 3 year $400,000 a year contract.

2014 Lee's Summit School District Audit Report

Citizens Voice Their Concerns During Public Comments

The April 2016 Lee's Summit school board meeting was refreshing to watch as the community rallied and citizens came to the board meeting to voice their concerns. However, many of them were shutdown by a district attorney asked to attend the meeting by the school board president. You'll want to read about the attorney hired by the district in the online opinion article posted by a Lee's Summit school board member on the Lee's Summit Tribune website which I have linked to further down in this article about keeping the public informed.

The April 2016 Lee's Summit school board meeting was video recorded by a parent in the district and at least 3 news stations. The video recording of the board meeting is definitely worth watching. Members of the community were there to voice their concerns about what they believed to be a "conflict of interest" with the law firm since the principal attorney of the law firm and the superintendent were dating. The attorney had helped negotiate his contract for the 2015-2016 school year in which he received a significant salary increase.

Watch the community's reaction as a different Lee's Summit's attorney stopped the citizens from voicing their concerns about their superintendent's new 3 year $400,000 a year contract because, it wasn't on the agenda using the links below. The first video link was recorded by a Lee's Summit resident. The second video link was a news story posted by Kansas City KSHB 41 Action News.

Watch Citizens Voicing Concerns at Lee's Summit April 2016 School Board Meeting

Outrage at Lee's Summit School Board Meeting - 04/14/2016 (KHSB 41 News)

One of the interesting things about Dr. McGehee's salary was that he was receiving deferred payments which weren't openly reported in his salary disclosure to the community. He was being paid much more than the community thought he was being paid. Once the community found out about this and the relationship of the superintendent and the school district's attorney, they were very willing to voice their concerns to the Lee's Summit school board.

Read more about Dr. McGehee's contracts and deferred payments on the Lee's Summit Tribune website here:

Conflict Continues in Lee's Summit R-7 School Board and with Superintendent

Luckily, for the citizens of Lee's Summit, there has been a school board member who has been willing to stand up for the citizens who elected him rather than sit back and remaining silent. He was responsible for informing the citizens about concerns he had with what was going on in the Lee's Summit school district.

Lee's Summit Superintendent Placed on Paid Administrative Leave
According to an article in today's Kansas City Star newspaper, Dr. David McGehee has been place on "paid" administrative leave and Lee's Summit board president Terry Harmon has stepped down as the board president. Below are links to an article in the Kansas City Star and news reports from KHSB 41 Action News:

Lee's Summit school board puts superintendent on paid leave,

chooses new board president - (Kansas City Star) 

Angry Parents Rallying in Lee's Summit - 05/19/2016 (KHSB 41 News)

Lee's Summit Superintendent Put on Paid Leave - 05/19/2016 (KHSB 41 News) 

Remaining silent and allowing Fox's former superintendent to run the district is what led to the loss of respect of Fox's school board and administration under former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow's reign. Concern after concern was brought to the attention Fox C-6 board members for years and nothing was done about them. Eventually, the community recognized that there was a problem and board members were voted out of office.

It appears that the same thing has been occurring in the Lee's Summit School District for some time, just like what had happened at Fox C-6. The school board was being told about all of the awards and accolades that the district was receiving and the board kept increasing Dr. McGehee's salary without looking at the numbers. Lee's Summit citizens who have pointed out MAP and ACT score results which don't appear to rank the district where their superintendent deserves to be the highest paid superintendent in the state of Missouri.

Former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow continuously tossed out similar statements about awards and accolades which weren't necessarily academically related. Fox's ACT scores and the number of students taking the ACT had Fox ranked in the bottom half of the state. Voicing my concerns in this area were always met with snide remarks from our former superintendent. When the facts aren't as impressive as they want the public to believe, some superintendents will deflect the criticism and make it appear as if those voicing the concern aren't properly informed. Anyone, including our former school board members could have verified the data themselves on Missouri DESE's website.

Keeping the Public Informed

The Lee's Summit Tribune has an open online Opinion/Letter to the Editor section on their website. This is where Lee's Summit school board member Bill Baird has been able to expose some of the issues occurring in their district to the public. I commend the Lee's Summit Tribune for allowing citizens in their community to voice their concerns in an open and professional and manner in as many words as are needed. That is something that is severely lacking in our community.

Lee's Summit Board Member's Letter to the Community on Atrocities

at the School Board Level

It's good for the public to hear about some of the things that go on behind the scenes in school districts in our state. There are some very close relationships between some school superintendents and some of the attorneys representing school districts in our state. It reminded me of the documentation written up by former assistant superintendents Tim Crutchley and Todd Scott regarding their meetings with former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and her husband Jamie Critchlow on May 27, 2014. Dianne Critchlow had called a meeting with Mr. Crutchley and Mr. Scott after an article was published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 23, 2014. Their notes documented that Dianne Critchlow knew that her husband Jamie Critchlow was posting on Topix but that she didn't say exactly what he was posting.

I found it interesting that Mr. Crutchley also documented that Dianne Critchlow contacted Tom Mickes of Fox's former law firm, Mickes Goldman O'Toole shortly after informing Mr. Crutchley and Mr. Scott about her husband's postings on Topix. A portion of Mr. Crutchley's documentation was redacted where he mentioned her phone call with attorney Tom Mickes.

While searching for the date that Fox's CFO John Brazeal requested an audit of the district, I came across the following article on The Missouri Volunteer Movement website. This article referenced several of my articles on this blog.

Missouri Volunteer Movement article: "Liar Liar"

In August 2013, I had voiced my concern about the lack of details in our school board meeting packets and the payments to credit cards without providing any credit card statements. In that article I linked to the 2002 state audit of the Fox C-6 School District conducted by State Auditor Claire McCaskill. Below is a link to the August 2013 article where I had been voicing my concerns about the board packets and getting access to them. It had taken nearly 3 years of making requests to get the board meeting packets posted onto Fox's website.

More Memory Holes In August 2013 Board Meeting Packet

It was February 20, 2014, when I wrote an article titled, "Why Does Fox C-6 Have a School Board?" in which I wrote, "Perhaps the community needs to request a state audit of the school district."

I'm glad that Mr. Brazeal requested an audit of the district. However, when audits take nearly 2 years to complete, memories begin to fade and people lose faith in the system. It's similar to waiting for nearly 7 years for the district to update and adopt a new set of school board policies and regulations. It was May 2009, when the district agreed in a Resolution Agreement with the U.S Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to update their school board Policies and Regulations to comply with federal law. There were several years spent rewriting the old policies which was never completed before having to switch over to the Missouri School Board Association's set of Policies and Regulations. This was done after the district fired the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm which was responsible for drafting and updating our school district's previous Policies and Regulations. 

School district administrators and school board members should be accountable for their actions. School board policies and regulations document their responsibilities and ethical standards they are expected to uphold. Any perception of impropriety or conflict of interest should be avoided.

Continue to check the Missouri State Auditor's website for the status of the audit using the link below:

Missouri State Auditor's

Audits In Progress List

You can review the 2002 Missouri State Auditor's report of the Fox C-6 School District using the link below. The link has changed since posted a I link to the report in 2013:

2002 Missouri State Auditor's Report of the Fox C-6 School District

Board Meeting Recap Highlights District Health Services Presentation

Recap of the March 15, 2016 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting Highlights District Health Services Presentation

Last month the district posted a recap of the March 15, 2016 school board meeting on the district website.

The Board Meeting Recap included a presentation given by the Director of Nursing covering the District's Health Services. The recap stated that the District Health Services Presentation, "highlighted a focus on the application and consistency processes in the Child Find / 504." However, the words "Child Find" were never mentioned during the presentation.

Child Find requires all school districts to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability from birth through age 21.

You can read more about Child Find and what schools are mandated to do under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on the Wrightslaw website using the following link:

Child Find and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

You can learn more about Section 504 law on the Wrightslaw website using the following link:

Section 504 and the ADA AA

It's important to note that school districts receive federal funding for IDEA but do not receive any funding for complying with Section 504 law. Therefore, there is no incentive to comply with Section 504 law other than the "threat" of having their federal funds withheld when they don't comply.

Many attorneys that represent school districts know quite well that school districts will never have their federal funding withheld or revoked for not complying with Section 504 law. Therefore some attorneys resort to unethical tactics and will make false or misleading statements about the law during 504 Team meetings in order to help school districts get around the law when parents are knowledgeable about Section 504 law. Many parents don't know the law so it's very easy for school districts to deny 504 eligibility without having to bring in their attorneys.

Fox's former law firm was very willing to provide Individualized Health Plans for students with disabilities. However, many who were qualified for Section 504 Plans were denied for years. As a former attorney for Fox C-6 explained during a September 2008 504 meeting, the difference between a Section 504 Plan and an Individualized Health Plan (IHP) is that a student doesn't get the legal protections with an Individualized Health Plan that they do with a Section 504 Plan.

The reason that I'm pointing this out is because Fox is still under an ongoing District Wide Compliance Review investigation by the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) for their Section 504 practices and whether or not they were providing Individualized Health Care Plans to students instead of Section 504 Plans for students who were qualified for Section 504. And, since it has taken ED OCR more than 6 years to complete their Compliance Review, it's easy to believe that Fox had been doing things properly for years.

After years of phone calls and emails asking what the status was of the District Wide Compliance Review, the Kansas City ED OCR Office has finally written up and forwarded a draft copy of the Compliance Review to the "acting" Enforcement Director over the Kansas City ED OCR Office. Debbie Osgood who was the Enforcement Director that responded to my requests last fall that I wrote about, left ED OCR in February 2016 according to the current "acting" Enforcement Director.

Since the Washington D.C. ED OCR Office initiated the District Wide Compliance Review in March 2010, there have been three Enforcement Directors over the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

After nearly a decade of egregious lack of enforcement of the law, it appears that the current Enforcement Director has recognized that there has been a major problem with the Kansas City ED OCR Office and is actively working on correcting the problem. It's difficult to imagine the number of students that have graduated from school while waiting for the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights to do their job.

It's been well known for years that there are major issues with the Kansas City ED OCR Office. Complaints, Investigations and Resolution Agreements have sat in the Kansas City ED OCR Office unfinished or un-monitored for years. It's been a free pass for school districts to skirt the law for years with little or no consequences.

Hopefully, the facts as to why the Kansas City ED OCR Office doesn't enforce the law like other regional ED OCR Offices will be made public in the near future. It's hard to fathom the amount of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on legal fees over the past decade as school district attorneys have been allowed to drag things out for years as the Kansas City ED OCR Office looked the other way. Emails accidentally sent out by attorneys in the Kansas City ED OCR Office document how the former Chief Attorney (now Director of the Kansas City ED OCR Office) didn't want us to know their office prioritizes it's case handling.

ED OCR's District Wide Compliance Review investigation of the Fox C-6 School District was opened in March 2010. It's difficult to believe that any investigation taking more than a year or two would be acceptable to any Director of Enforcement overseeing a regional office. So, it's quite obvious that the Enforcement Directors over the Kansas City ED OCR Office for the last decade haven't done their job as well.

Fox's District Wide Compliance Review has been open for more than 6 years. In fact, the Kansas City ED OCR Office has only completed 7 out of 17 Compliance Reviews assigned to their office over the past decade. Obviously there is a major problem in the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

Fox's District Health Services Presentation
Back to the District Health Services presentation, I thought it was great that Fox's new Director of Nursing highlighted a focus on the application and consistency in the Child Find and Section 504 processes for the school board. I don't believe that many school board members or the general public are very well educated on Child Find and Section 504 Law and what those obligations are for a school district.

A few years ago, I was asked by a Fox C-6 board member why a student would need a 504 Plan. He wanted to know why a student would need a 504 plan since you could always sue the school district if they did something wrong or didn't do what they were supposed to do. I told him that the student should have a 504 plan if they were qualified for one because it's the law.

The problem with suing a school district is that the district has the ability to spend tens of thousands in legal fees if not hundreds of thousands in legal fees using taxpayer money to defend itself. It's much easier and less expensive for parents to request a 504 Plan for their student rather than having to sue the school district after they didn't do what they said they were going to do.

Since the district now audio records school board meetings, I was able to download the audio file for the March 15, 2016 school board meeting and listen to the presentation given by the Director of Nursing. She also had a slideshow presentation which you can find on BoardDocs along with 2014-2015 nursing services data. The slideshow has a photo of school nurses but I don't believe it's a recent photo.

Below is a link to the March 15, 2016 School Board Meeting Recap on the district website and below that is the text posted about the District Health Services Presentation in the board meeting recap.

Fox C-6 Board Meeting Recap for March 15, 2016

District Health Services Presentation
Mrs. Kim Schumacher, RN, presented information to the Board and public on the state of District Health Services. The presentation discussed current health service processes that support the learning environment to foster achievement, embrace optimum health for staff and students, and optimize best support processes and practices. The report highlighted a focus on the application and consistency processes in the Child Find / 504. The presentation included future goals such as developing deeper understanding and utilization of updated policies in the health care applications that support optimum health in the academic environment and promoting awareness to current health trends and issues that keep students and staff informed about the highest level of health.

Fox's recap webpage above contains a link to the board meeting audio files where you can download and listen to the school board meetings that are now audio recorded each month. You can listen to the Director of Nursing's presentation by clicking on the link below which links to the audio file posted on the district's Google Drive. The file is in (ma4) format and is only 24MB in size. Her presentation begins at (11min 24sec).

March 15, 2016 Board Meeting Audio File

When I listened to the audio presentation above, I noticed that the Director of Nursing never mentioned the words "Child Find". So, there really wasn't much of a highlight or much education for the school board members about the district's obligations for Child Find. She did mention "504" in her presentation in the following sentence:

"We've made progress with our 504 developments and processes with a lot of work."

Having gone through "the process" which started 8 years ago and continued for more than 6 years, I certainly hope that the district's processes have improved. In 2008 and 2009, the former Director of Nursing explained how her extensive training basically trumped our 22+ year board certified doctor's knowledge when denying 504 eligibility.

Dan Baker, who was the 504 Coordinator for the district back then removed a Section 504 designation in September 2008 and subsequently denied eligibility several times over the next 6 years before being reinstated after Dan Baker was demoted and the former law firm fired.

Independent Evaluation and Revoking Consent
Dan Baker was present during our May 2009 eligibility meeting when the school district's attorney informed us about the district's right to perform an independent evaluation. The district attorney informed us that we didn't have to have an independent evaluation if we didn't want the district to perform one.

The attorney gave us an example as to why we might not want to allow the District to perform an independent evaluation. His example at the May 2009 meeting stuck with me for years. I'm sure his example would stick with most parents. He gave us an example as to what the district's doctor may want to do as part of their independent evaluation. He wanted to let us know that if we didn't want something like that done, that we could always revoke our consent. However, if we revoked our consent, we basically waived our rights to obtaining a 504 plan.

Here is what the school district's attorney had to say from my audio recording of that 504 meeting:

"If the doctor decides they want to hang your daughter upside down by her ankles for 3 weeks, then you can always revoke your consent. But, if you don't consent, the process stops here and now."

I asked Dan Baker during our Due Process Hearing which occurred in 2010 whether or not he thought the district attorney was trying to intimidate us into not doing the independent evaluation. Dan Baker testified under oath with the following answer from the transcript of the Due Process Hearing:

"I remember something along those lines. I don’t know if it was word for word as to what you said, but I remember something along those lines. But I also remember the context that was used and he did mean what those words were as far as tying in the – I think the thing that he was trying to get across was that at any time he wanted to do a test, whether it be a skin prick test or whatever that you didn’t want her to participate in, that you could obviously withdraw and not allow us to do that. By no means, no, did he mean to use that as intimidation. I'm speaking for him And I can tell you that I was in that meeting, and he did not mean those words to come across as intimidating by any means."

I can certainly tell you that my opinion of the attorney's comment above is much different than that of Dan Baker's. It made me wonder if it was regular practice district doctors to hang children upside down by their ankles for 3 weeks in order to do independent evaluations since the district attorney had mentioned it during our meeting. Perhaps they don't, but I certainly hope that Fox's Child Find and 504 process have improved since then. I also hope that our school board members and parents become much more educated on Section 504 law and Child Find.

Fox C-6's State Audit Results Not Expected Until Late This Year or Early Next Year

It was reported in The Rock newspaper this month that the state audit of the Fox C-6 School District won't be completed until the end of the year or the beginning of next year. Originally, the community was told that the results of the audit would probably be released in September 2015.

The time to complete the state audit is pretty impressive considering how long the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in Kansas City has been investigating the school district for a District Wide Compliance Review.

5+ Years and Still Under Investigation
On July 28, 2015 I received a response from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) to my June 2, 2015 Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the status of Fox C-6's March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review.

The response came from Bill Dittmeier, the Director of the the Kansas City ED OCR office.

Bill Dittmeier's response stated that Fox's District Wide Compliance Review is still "an open investigation".

It's difficult to understand how Fox can still be under "an open investigation" after five and a half years considering that the Memphis City School District in Tennessee underwent the exact same compliance review investigation in March 2010 which resulted in the Memphis City School District signing a Resolution Agreement in January 2012.

ED OCR's Growing List of Open Compliance Reviews
It appears that the Kansas City ED OCR office has a documented pattern of compliance reviews and complaints that have remained open for years. An August 22, 2012 FOIA request to ED OCR was responded to on May 3, 2013 which listed 3 open compliance reviews in the Kansas City ED OCR office. Two of the open compliance reviews had been open investigations from 2009. They were for the Bayless School District and the Cape Girardeau School District. The third compliance review was the Fox C-6 compliance review which was opened in March 2010.

I recently made a FOIA request to obtain an updated list of open compliance reviews in the Kansas City ED OCR office compared to other ED OCR Regional Offices.

A Lingering Problem
Two years ago at the June 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting, I asked Fox's school board about the status of Fox's District Wide Compliance Review investigation and the status of the district's Resolution Agreement with ED OCR that Dan Baker signed in May 2009 during Public Comments.

I wrote about these open in issues with ED OCR in a July 6, 2013 article. That article also listed the numerous "monitoring letters" sent to the district over the years following up on the district's May 2009 Resolution Agreement. Charges from Fox's former law firm document fees related to responding to those ongoing "monitoring letters".

Documentation Contradicts Superintendent Dianne Critchlow's Statements

at June 2013 Board Meeting

Using the link below, you can read several years of FOIA request responses from the Kansas City ED OCR office regarding Fox's open district wide compliance review. The July 28, 2015 FOIA response was the first response from Bill Dittmeier who succeeded Angela Bennett as the Director of the Kansas City ED OCR office in 2014.

Below is an excerpt from Bill Dittmeier's FOIA response:

The compliance review concerning the Fox C-6 School District is an open investigation. OCR has determined that the release of the information you have requested at this time could reasonably be expected to interfere with our enforcement activities. In addition, the information you have requested includes personally identifiable information that, if released, could be unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Therefore, OCR is denying your request.

July 28, 2015 ED OCR FOIA Response Letter

You may be wondering why Fox would still be under investigation after five and a half years.

Is this something that our community should be concerned about?

From a financial point of view, it is a concern because the district has spent tens of thousands of dollars over the past 6+ years in legal fees related to the compliance review and the still open May 2009 Resolution Agreement as well as other OCR complaints from others in the district.

District attorneys responded to monitoring letters, worked on updating district policies to get the district in compliance with federal law and prepared Dan Baker, school staff and the Fox C-6 school board for interviews in the fall of 2010. District attorneys also charged Fox C-6 taxpayers to respond to my Public Comments at board meetings as well as emails sent to the school board and administrators. There were also charges in the legal bills for reading this blog.

The legal bills are very interesting to read. The disappointing thing about the legal bills was that the former law firm didn't break out their billable time on Fox's bills like they did for the Wentzville school district. This makes it much more difficult to analyze how much was actually spent on various issues since many line items are grouped into lump sum billings.

I requested copies of the Fox C-6 legal bills via Sunshine Law in August 2014. I had made numerous requests before dating back to 2009 for the legal bills but had always been given excuses as to why the district couldn't or wouldn't make them available. I should also note that I didn't receive copies of the legal bills until April 2015 after I contacted the Attorney General's Office for help in obtaining them.

I didn't receive all of the bills I requested because according to Fox's current CFO, the bills were destroyed prior to the 2010-2011 school year.

Fox's Compliance Review Noted in Report to the President
In 2012, Fox's 2010 compliance review was referenced in ED OCR's FY 2009-2012 Report to the President and Secretary of Education that was issued in 2012 by former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Russlynn H. Ali. Fox C-6's compliance review is listed on the map on page 5 as FAPE 2010 as a Section 504 compliance review. I'm surprised that Russlyn Ali included Fox's Compliance Review in the report since the investigation hasn't been completed yet.

2009-2012 ED OCR's Report to the President and Secretary of Education

It's interesting to read ED OCR's statements in the 2009-2012 Report to the President about how OCR must vigorously enforce the nations's civil right's laws.

I'm not sure how many people consider an investigation lasting more than 5 years, "vigorously enforcing the nation's civil rights laws".

Randolph Wills the Director of Enforcement over the Kansas City ED OCR office wrote a letter to Fox C-6's former legal counsel on April 7, 2010. He informed Fox that compliance reviews are designed to address systemic issues and to ensure that violations are readily identified and promptly eliminated:

As OCR explained in its notification letter to the District, compliance reviews are designed to address systemic issues and to ensure that violations are readily identified and promptly eliminated. The instant compliance review is consistent with the stated purpose and goals of OCR compliance review activities. Accordingly, I have determined that the compliance review will proceed.

What's even more interesting is the fact that the other school district, Memphis City School District in Tennessee, that was investigated for the same issue was investigated and agreed to sign a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR in January 2012. ED OCR posted a Press Release in April 2012 about the Memphis City School District's Resolution Agreement along with the Resolution Agreement itself.

April 2012 ED OCR Press Release

about Memphis City Schools Compliance Review Agreement 

Memphis City School District Compliance Resolution Letter

Memphis City School District Compliance Resolution Agreement

It's amazing how quickly the Atlanta ED OCR office was able to conduct and resolve the issues in the Memphis City School District considering the fact that the Memphis City SD had 110,361 students and 191 schools in their district when the investigation was opened compared to Fox having roughly 11,000 students and only 18 schools. It causes one to question the abilities and/or ethics of some of the Regional ED OCR Offices.

Concerns Over Which OCR Office Handles Investigations

In 2010, the Kansas City ED OCR office was assigned to conduct Fox's District Wide Compliance Review. I voiced my concerns to the Washington, D.C. ED OCR office back then about assigning the compliance review to the Kansas City ED OCR office. My concerns were based upon the fact that there didn't appear to be much enforcement effort out of the Kansas City ED OCR office based upon my conversations with many other advocates and individuals who had been dealing with the KC ED OCR office for years.

The fact that Fox C-6 has been given extension after extension to meet their obligations on the still open May 2009 Resolution Agreement and the fact that Fox's District Wide Compliance Review is still "an open investigation" after five and a half years, I think my concerns have been validated.

According to Fox's legal bills Fox's former law firm prepared the district and board prior to the interviews and then represented them during the ED OCR interviews in 2010.

So how long will it take for ED OCR to complete their March 2010 investigation?

According to Fox's legal bills, it appears that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) was able to conduct and complete a compliance review of the district sometime in 2012 or 2013 that I was unaware of. There were charges in the legal bills to review the findings.

There was never any mention of a USDA Compliance Review in any of the board meeting minutes that I recall. However there was never any mention of the March 2010 ED OCR Compliance Review in board meeting minutes either.

I've made a FOIA request to obtain a copy the USDA compliance review findings.

Federal Programs Overview Tonight at Fox C-6 School Board Meeting

There is a Fox C-6 school board meeting tonight.

Closed Session: 5:30PM

Public Session: 7:00PM

There is time allotted for Public Comments at tonight's meeting.

You can review the agenda and associated documents on BoardDocs:

Fox C-6 June 2 Board Meeting on BoardDocs

Dr. Wipke was released by Rockwood School District a month early so his first day at Fox C-6 was moved to Monday June 1, 2015.

Fox posted Dr. Wipke's one month contract on BoardDocs for the public to review prior to tonight's school board meeting. You can review his contract using the link below from BoardDocs:

Dr. Wipke's One Month Superintendent Contract for Starting Early

Angela Burns Baker who is in charge of Fox's Federal Programs will be making a presentation at tonight's board meeting about Title I, II and III. Her presentation documents the amount of federal money Fox C-6 is receiving for Title I, II and III schools in our district and compares their progress to the state average. Her report highlights the schools that are Title I in the district.

No where in Angie Burns Baker's report does she mention the fact that Federal Law prohibits retaliation against anyone who files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). Her husband,  Dan Baker used to be Fox's Section 504 Coordinator for the district and handled ED OCR complaints for the district. 

Dan Baker has since been moved/hired as the Seckman Elementary School principal in the district after it was discovered that derogatory online posts directed at parents were traced back to his and Angie Burns Baker's home. 

ED OCR's Dear Colleague Letter on Retaliation

I wrote the article above on retaliation only a couple of months after online attacks were made against me after I spoke at a school board meeting. In 2013, I had no idea that some of those posts would be linked to Dan and Angela Baker's home. At that time I figured that most of them were being made by the Critchlows. I didn't have proof in 2013. It took until April-May 2014 before I learned that the Baker's home was linked to posts as well.

It's also very surprising that the Bakers got to keep their jobs knowing what everyone knows now.

It is quite possible that in today's world with "Smart Homes", the posts that were linked to the Baker's home could have been made by their thermostat or their refrigerator and not by anyone living in the house. Just a thought! You never know.

I get asked quite often about what's going on with our lawsuit. Well, when the Critchlows requested to have the lawsuit moved to federal court, it added 18 months to the process due to docketing of federal lawsuits. So, the court date for the lawsuit is currently set for April 2016.

District Wide Compliance Review by ED OCR
Things don't happen very fast when dealing with federal agencies such as ED OCR and USDA OCR. Fox C-6 has been undergoing an District Wide Compliance Review with the U. S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) after more than 5 years. ED OCR is supposed to enforce civil rights law such as Section 504 law. USDA OCR is supposed to to the same. However, it doesn't mean that these agencies actually do their job. Education law attorneys know this. That's how school districts can go for years without have to comply with the law. That's why the legal bills that I did obtain from Fox have year after year of Dan Baker and the former law firm responding to ED OCR and USDA OCR regarding the Resolution Agreement and the USDA's Final Agency Decision that found the district Non-Compliant with Section 504 law.

I find it funny how ED OCR touted Fox's 2010 District Wide Compliance Review as one of the Compliance Reviews in their 2009-2012 Report to the President and Secretary of Education given the fact that the Compliance Review is still an open investigation.

ED OCR's 2009-2012 Report to the President and Secretary of Education

ED used to call this an Annual Report. However, there were several years as you can see that the report was not made on an annual basis.

You can find Fox's Compliance Review on page 5 (14 pages into the report). It is linked to the state of Missouri on the map of the United States. It is listed as FAPE 2010 which was performed by the Kansas City ED OCR office.

The latest FOIA request to ED OCR has Fox's District March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review listed as an open investigation. Therefore there is nothing to report to the public at this time. It certainly seems odd that it would take more than 5 years to investigate the school district as to whether or not our district complied with federal law.

On a side note, last month, the Wentzville School District changed law firms just like Fox C-6 did last year.

Fox's Legal Bills

Some may wonder why it took 7 months for our district to fulfill my Sunshine Request for Fox's legal bills from 2007-2014 from Fox's former law firm.

It took filing a complaint with the Missouri Attorney General's Office in order to obtain the legal bills. That was after making several inquiries over a 6 month period trying to obtain them by emailing the district. Fox's CFO failed to see the public's interest in those dated invoices. 

I also had to make a few calls to the AG's office in order to prod the district into releasing the information. I was not charged for the legal bills. Mr. Brazeal reported to me that the district waived the fees of more than $800 in research time and copying the documents. Thank you Mr. Brazeal for not charging me for the information. 

Fox's legal bills from our former law firm are quite interesting. Many email responses from the district to my questions via email or at board meetings went through the district's legal counsel. 

I also found it interesting that Dan Baker's "press release" / interview was reviewed by legal counsel for the August 2010 Post Dispatch article regarding our issues with the district and their handling of Section 504.

I was very disappointed in the fact that Fox's CFO, Mr. Brazeal told me in his email response that when sending me some of the legal bills when he said,

"After an exhaustive search, it has been determined that all paid invoices from the 2007-2008 school year (including invoices from Mickes Goldman O'Toole) have been previously destroyed."

Mr. Brazeal repeated the same statement for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.

Not having those legal bills certainly makes it difficult for the public to know how their tax dollars were spent with the district's former law firm during a time of turmoil and legal wrangling over Section 504 law and their responses to ED OCR and USDA OCR.

The missing years of legal bills covered the majority of the time when Fox's Dan Baker and former superintendent Dianne Critchlow were dealing with ED OCR and USDA OCR regarding Section 504 issues.

It was May 2009 when Dan Baker signed a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR to comply with Section 504 law.

It was March 2010 when ED OCR informed the district that the District would be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review.

Still Not Compliant after 6 Years?

When I checked earlier this year, Fox still hadn't complied with the May 2009 Resolution Agreement that Dan Baker signed and agreed to. This is probably now due to the fact that Fox hasn't updated their Policies and Regulations since they were told to do so by ED OCR in May 2009. It will now be another 12 to 18 months before the district's Policies and Regulations get updated and released.

I certainly hope that a lot of this information becomes public when the audit is released. A state audit is supposed to review federal compliance as well and it seems that Fox has had problems in this area for years.

You may also want to check out Jefferson County Penknife's recent article about Jamie Critchow's Driver's License Status. Jamie Critchlow is the husband of former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown Critchlow. He was also the former Director of Fox's Bridges program who had 2 DWI arrests in the past year. One was in Iron County and the other in the city of Arnold. Apparently, Jamie Critchlow drove himself to the Arnold courts without having a valid driver's license according to Department of Review records when he had to appear before the court for his Arnold drunk diving arrest.

Critchlow Driver's License Status

by Jefferson County Penknife