OCR Investigation Ignores 504 Issues at Fox C-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2015, I asked the following question:

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

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

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

Who's Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights?

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

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

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

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

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

The former administrator told me:

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

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

Bullying In the St. Louis Post Dispatch

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

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

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

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

PD Article Failed To Document District Wide Compliance Review Investigation

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

Then there was the privacy issue with Missouri DESE

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

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

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

Post Dispatch Sunshine Request Leads To Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 302 - Resolution Agreement Reached During an Investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities from AmericanBar.org

Below is a link to an article with one of the best written and most important paragraphs that I've read on retaliation as it relates to Section 504 law that I found on the American Bar Association website.

I found the article after being contacted by a parent recently who withdrew her child from our school district due to retaliation. She wasn't the first parent in our district to do so.

The Conclusion paragraph from the article does a very good job of stating what can happen in a school district when your school board doesn't do its job of proper oversight of school district administrators. It's what happened at Fox during the Critchlow era and the mishandling of Section 504 issues in our school district. It's also the reason that led to the ousting of a former superintendent and her husband and the demotion of a former district 504 Coordinator / assistant superintendent and another assistant superintendent. It also led to the ousting of the law firm and a state audit of Fox's school district finances.

All school board members past, present and future should read the paragraph below as well as the full article on retaliation. I spent a number of years reaching out to Fox's school board members for help but very little was done until online defamatory posts were traced to school district administrator's homes in our district. I had mentioned it numerous times to Fox's school board members over the years but was ignored.

The 2019 American Bar Association article covers retaliation in Section 504. It's something that I'm very familiar with and have had years of first hand experience dealing with school district attorneys, an elementary school principal, assistant superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator as well as Fox's former superintendent. I've also witnessed first hand the lack of enforcement of Section 504 law by the Kansas City U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

Section 504 law and Fox's school board policies prohibit retaliation. However the law and board policies must be enforced or there's no reason to have them in the first place.

Below is the Conclusion from the 2019 American Bar Association article on Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities:

CONCLUSION

"Retaliatory conduct of teachers and school administrators can have lasting consequences on families. When schools inhibit parent advocacy, they risk not meeting the disability-related needs of the child, leading to lack of progress and, in some instances, medical and psychological harm. Actions that criminalize parent advocacy through truancy referrals, seeking civil restraining orders, filing false abuse or neglect claims, or taking other acts to “push out” the family from the school have reverberations in the community and dire consequences for the family. Public schools must accept and work with all children and all of their caregivers, regardless of how difficult it might be. Thus, severe actions against those they serve should be taken as a last possible resort and only after there is a review of all policies and procedures, teacher training, and a proactive attempt at parent engagement, and finally, only if it is for a legal, legitimate, and nonretaliatory reason.

Bringing forth viable and strong claims of retaliation will promote change because it will force schools to assess their behavior, return to parents and students the power to assert their rights, and inform and educate the courts and public that disability-based discrimination in public schools is a continuing problem. However, retaliation claims must be strictly alleged and meet the evidentiary standard to be successful."

Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities

AmericanBar.org

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

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

https://www.Facebook.com/FoxC6Watchdogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox C-6's Section 504 Manual

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools 504 Manual

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

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

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools
Section 504 Manual

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools
Section 504 Parent's Guide

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

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

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

ED OCR Resources for Section 504

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scenarios In OCR's Resource Guide to Section 504

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

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

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

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

11 Years Ago Today Fox C-6 Signed a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

Today marks another sad milestone in the 12+ year long saga of obtaining a 504 plan in the Fox C-6 School District.

It was 11 years ago today (May 1, 2009) when Dan Baker, who was the 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District at the time, signed a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR).

In the May 2009 Resolution Agreement, Fox C-6 agreed to make changes to the district’s Section 504 Manual. Some of those changes were to remove language that did not comply with Section 504 and replace it with new language and submit those changes to ED OCR by June 9, 2009. Those changes to Fox’s 504 Manual were not made. These changes were required after ED OCR opened an investigation following a complaint filed in the fall of 2008.

The agreement also required Fox to do another 504 evaluation by a specific date and submit information from the 504 evaluation to OCR for review.

For the next 5 years, Fox's attorneys refused to make some of the changes to the district’s 504 Manual. They also fought along with administrators, the reinstatement of a Section 504 Plan that was removed in September 2008.

OCR did not enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement as part of their job description states. They allowed Fox C-6 to drag things out for years. Then in June 2014, Fox switched law firms when the internet defamation scandal became public.

March 2018 - Fox Agrees to Update 504 Manual Again
In March 2018, Fox agreed again to update the district’s Section 504 Manual and include in the manual the exact language provided to the district by OCR. Fox also agreed to remove language that did not comply with Section 504. The district also agreed to include in the Section 504 Manual at least two examples of students who would qualify for a Section 504 plan.

Checking On Fox's Updated Section 504 Manual
Since August 2018, I've been checking in with Fox’s current Section 504 coordinator as to when Fox’s new Section 504 Manual would be made available to the public. In August 2018, I asked for a copy of Fox’s current Section 504 Manual so I could compare it to the new Section 504 Manual when it became available. I was provided a copy of that manual and it was pretty much the same manual that we had received in 2008.

Fox’s current Section 504 Manual is not available on the district website. I asked about that in August 2018. I’ve been told since then that Fox’s new Section 504 Manual will be available on the district website when it is completed.

2 More Years Have Passed
It’s now been more than 2 years since the Fox agreed again to update the Section 504 Manual. The update still hasn’t been completed. I’ve been told that the district is waiting on OCR to review the document and provide feedback to the district. I’ve also been in touch with OCR numerous times over the past two years on this issue. I've been told by OCR several times that they hoped to complete that task soon. OCR has a history of not returning emails or phone calls after things begin to drag out like they have with Fox.

OCR's Monitoring of Fox's Resolution Agreement
OCR is responsible for “monitoring” school districts to see that they comply with their Resolution Agreements. However, it was easy to see 10+ years ago that OCR doesn’t really do much “monitoring”. The parents have to monitor and check up on OCR to see if they will ever do their job and check on their school district to see if they are doing their job. This has been well documented on my blog.

When will the parents, teachers and staff get an updated Section 504 Manual from Fox?

Probably never.

I’ve often wondered why our school board members don’t check into things like this.

Fox currently has 3 school board members who were directly involved with or are related to someone who was directly involved with the 504 issues in our district.

We currently have two school board members who were on the school board when former superintendent Dianne Critchlow “resigned” from the district amid the cyber bullying scandal. They are not seeking re-election in June.

In the meantime, I’ll keep checking up on this issue since the district is still being "monitored" by OCR and has been since May 2009.

Fox's May 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

Fox's March 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

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

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

The other day I commented on Facebook about the ED OCR Resolution Agreement that Dr. Wipke signed in March 2018. The Resolution Agreement was signed to close the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review. Mr. Brazeal responded to my comment with the following:

“Yes, it is true that Dr. Wipke, Superintendent, signed a Resolution Agreement as presented by OCR in March 2018. This is standard procedure in closing out a review. However, contrary to what you allege, there were no "findings" showing any violations of federal law. Hence, it is no surprise the news media didn't publish this non-story. Thus, it is not responsible to write "just think how many kids were denied 504 plans" when OCR has made no such finding, despite years of examination.”

This kind of comment from school officials is expected. Fox has been sweeping this problem under the rug for nearly a decade.

On Facebook, I responded to Mr. Brazeal's comment above and documented some of the many things that didn’t make it into the March 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter or the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

The only reason that a district is asked to sign a Resolution Agreement is because OCR found compliance issues while conducting an investigation.

This wasn't the first time Fox signed a Resolution Agreement with OCR. The district signed one on May 1, 2009 related to the same issues based on a complaint filed in August 2008. The May 2009 Resolution Agreement was "monitored" by ED OCR from May 2009 until August 2014. In August 2014, ED OCR visited Fox to do an Early Complaint Resolution and subsequently reinstated a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008.

18 Actions Items for Fox for No "Findings"

It's important to understand that OCR allows school districts to resolve compliance reviews or complaints prior to the conclusion of an OCR investigation. By doing so, ED OCR does not issue any "findings" as Mr Brazeal pointed out in his response. Saying there were no "findings" is very misleading. It gives the appearance that there was nothing found by OCR during their investigation.

However, Fox's 15 page Resolution Agreement clearly documents 18 action items that the district has agreed to do in order to fulfill the terms of the Resolution Agreement and become compliant with Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Several of the action items in the March 2018 Resolution Agreement were similar to those in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

Below is a paragraph from the March 2018 Resolution Agreement stating that OCR will not close the monitoring of the Agreement until OCR determines that Fox has fulfilled the terms of the agreement. Therefore, Fox is currently non-compliant.

"The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), and 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case."

Just because a school district agrees to do things in a Resolution Agreement is no guarantee that the district will actually fulfill the terms of the agreement. Fox demonstrated that by their actions from the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

In March 2018, Fox voluntarily agreed to resolve the Compliance Review prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation. It will be interesting to see how many years it takes before Fox fulfills the terms of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

Resolution Agreement Not Provided to School Board
Dr. Wipke did not provide a copy of the Resolution Agreement in BoardDocs for Fox's school board members to review. When I asked why not, I was informed that it was an "administrative action". Since the OCR Resolution Agreement deals with complying with federal law, our school board members should have been provided a copy of the Agreement and the Compliance Review letter as well. Having it in BoardDocs would have also made the documents available to the local community.

Resolution Agreement On ED.GOV
Even though Fox's Resolution Agreement and Compliance Review letter wasn't made available to Fox's school board members or the community, it is available to the general public on ED OCR's website. I have provided links to the documents below:

March 8, 2018 ED OCR Resolution Agreement

One of the actions items Fox was required to do was to send out notices to parents and legal guardians of each District Student:

“By September 17, 2018, the District will send a notice to the parent(s)/legal guardian(s) of each District student through the U.S. Postal Service (U.S. mail), or by email, explaining the District’s obligation to conduct a Section 504 evaluation of any student who, because of disability, needs or is believed to need special education or related services to send out notices to everyone in the district.”

Fox completed the above action item in September 2018.

March 2018 ED OCR Compliance Review Letter

The OCR"s District Wide Compliance Review specifically investigated the following as stated on the first page of the Compliance Review Letter:

"This compliance review assessed whether the District discriminates on the basis of disability against students with food allergies and other health impairments such as diabetes. Specifically, the review addressed whether the District provides individualized health plans to students with food allergies and other health impairments that do not comply with the requirements of Section 504 and Title II, thereby denying those students opportunities to participate in and benefit from the District’s programs and activities that are equal to the opportunities afforded to students without disabilities."

Since it was well documented that ED OCR knew that we were provided an Individualized Health Plan (IHP) instead of a Section 504 plan, it was easy to see why OCR opened a District Wide Compliance Review investigating the practice of providing IHP's instead of Section 504 plans. This pattern of practice had been happening around the country for years as I found in other Resolution Agreements and pointed out in previous articles. The Memphis City School district was caught doing the same thing and signed a Resolution Agreement with OCR in 2012.

Memphis City Schools Reaches Resolution Agreement with OCR on IHCP's

8 Years To Conduct A Compliance Review

The "years of examination" that it took to complete Fox's District Wide Compliance Review is quite a story in itself. Parents and advocates who have filed complaints with the Kansas City ED OCR office have experienced and followed their lack of enforcement for more than a decade.

It took OCR nearly 4 more years after the online defamatory comments scandal became public for OCR to complete their investigation and get the district to sign a Resolution Agreement. During that time, I continually checked in with OCR asking the KC Director and the Regional Enforcement Director when they planned to complete their investigation.

OCR's 8 year investigation don't seem to follow OCR’s mission statement from their website:

“The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights.”

You can't ensure equal access to education when it takes 8 years to investigate problems in a school district.

Students Denied 504 Plans
In my Facebook response to Mr. Brazeal, I also noted the fact that there were students who were denied Section 504 plans in the district between 2008 and 2014. Ours was one of them. My remarks about denying 504 plans are true. We don't know how many students were denied 504's because most parents don't know about Section 504. Plus parents aren't willing to battle their school district because they can't afford attorneys and because they fear retaliation from the district.

Several parents of students in our district contacted me over the years telling me that their children had been denied Section 504 plans by the district. Some of those students were eventually provided a 504 plan in 2014. That happened after the district changed law firms as well as ousted former superintendent Dianne Critchlow, fired her husband Jamie Critchlow and demoted Dan Baker, Fox's Section 504 Coordinator at the time. The Critchlow's departure and Dan Baker's demotion was related to online defamatory posts that were traced to their homes and directed at me and a couple of others in the district.

Items Not Documented By ED OCR
ED OCR was made aware of some of the students who were denied Section 504 plans but did not document that fact in the District Wide Compliance Review letter or Resolution Agreement.

OCR also didn't document the monitoring letters that they sent the district between 2009 and 2013. Those monitoring letters did not reflect well on the district as they noted the numerous times that the district failed to meet the terms of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. OCR also failed to document any of the online postings that were traced to the homes of district administrators.

Retaliation by a school district is prohibited by Section 504 law. This is documented on the last page of Fox's District Wide Compliance Review letter:

"Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by federal civil rights law. Complaints alleging such retaliation may be filed with OCR. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released."

OCR was made aware of the online postings that were being posted on TOPIX for years. OCR was provided copies of the postings that were traced to the homes of our former superintendent and former Section 504 coordinator in 2014. OCR was also provided the comments that were posted online after the "press release" in the Post Dispatch article from August 2010 after the district "won" its Due Process Hearing.

No Monitoring Letters for Two Years
During ED OCR's "monitoring" of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement, there was more than a two year lapse in their "monitoring" of the district. ED OCR didn't issue any monitoring letters to the district between December 2009 and March 2012. We asked ED OCR numerous times during that two year gap as to when they planned to send new monitoring letters to the district. We also asked as to how many years it would take before they actually enforce the agreement rather than changing the deadlines of the agreement when Fox failed to meet the deadlines that they agreed to.

Ongoing Efforts To Comply with Section 504 and Title II 

One very notable point in the March 2018 Resolution agreement is this statement on the first page of the Resolution Agreement:

"As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II, the District agrees to review and, as needed, amend its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process to ensure that the Manual and process conform with the requirements set out in the Section 504 and Title II regulations, and are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008."

The statement, "As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II" is a very important statement. It's been more than 10 years since Fox signed the May 2009 Resolution Agreement in which Fox agreed to update its Section 504 Manual and 504 process. However, Fox never fulfilled that part of the agreement. As part of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement, Fox is still working on updating its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process. How can that be when ED OCR states that they do "vigorous enforcement of civil rights"? Obviously there's a systemic problem at ED OCR regarding enforcement of agreements.

Another item to point out from the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter is the following statement:

“Since the time OCR opened this compliance review in 2010, the District has worked to improve its process for identifying and evaluating students who may be eligible for Section 504 services and protections.”

That statement from the 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter does not accurately reflect the responses from the district. The statement ignores the fact that the district’s legal counsel refused to update school documents and policies for nearly 4 years as documented by ED OCR in their monitoring letters sent to the district between 2009 and 2013. An article I wrote in July 2013, documents those letters as well as the letters sent to ED OCR from the district’s legal counsel informing ED OCR why they refused to make changes to district policies and documentation that they originally agreed to update.

Press Release In Legal Bills
According to the legal bills from Fox's former law firm (Mickes, Goldman, O'Toole) that I obtained via a Sunshine Request from the district, I discover that the district’s former law firm billed time to review my July 2013 article. The legal bills also documented the many times that Fox's legal counsel helped the district over the years respond to my Public Comments, emails and Sunshine Requests. The legal bills covered May 2010 through June 2014. Legals bills weren't provided for any of the time dating back to 2008 when the attorneys first got involved. My interest in getting copies of legal bills was to determine how many tens of thousands of dollars or more were spent in fighting a Section 504 plan for a student in the district.

The "press release" as noted in the legal bills was for charges in helping to get a story into the Post Dispatch.

The news article ("press release") appeared in the Post Dispatch in August 2010. Comments posted to the online article contained many bullying and threatening comments directed at our family for pursuing a Section 504 plan. The online comments from the Post Dispatch article were forward to both ED OCR and USDA OCR due to the retaliatory nature of those comments. Comments in the Post Dispatch back then were made anonymously and couldn't be traced. However, some of those who commented were identifiable by their remarks.

Fox's former law firm (Mickes Goldman O'Toole) used the media in many of their school district cases to bully parents. I followed several of their cases across the state over the years and searched for articles related to those cases. Similar comments were posted on those articles as well that were directed at families who pursued Section 504 plans for their children.

If it hadn’t been for my constant follow up with ED OCR over the years checking on the progress of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement and the May 2010 District Wide Compliance Review, the District Wide Compliance Review probably would have never been completed or closed by ED OCR.

Law Firm Video Told Educators Not To Provide 504 Plans

It also helped that I found a video on the Doster Mickes law firm's website in August 2008 of an attorney giving a presentation at the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar. The attorney told educators in our state that they should not provide students with food allergies a Section 504 plan even though they may qualify for one.

I knew the family who the attorney was referring to in her presentation. I knew the family because an advocate who had helped us, had also helped them. Their child’s 504 plan was taken away as well during a Due Process Hearing in front of the school board. I contacted the family about the video I had found and they confirmed that the attorney in the video was referring to their case. The family was very upset to learn that their case was being touted by the law firm.

Video Leads to Statewide Training By USDA OCR

In September 2008, I forwarded a link to the video from the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar that I had found to both ED OCR and USDA OCR because I knew it wasn't right for attorneys to tell school districts to say deny a Section 504 plan if a student was qualified for one.

Providing that video to the USDA OCR office led to statewide training by USDA OCR for all Food Nutrition Directors in the state of Missouri. Fox didn't attend the statewide training.

My July 2013 article documented the fact that I spoke at the June 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting during Public Comments and asked the school board about the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review and the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

My Public Comments at the June 2013 school board meeting were documented in the board meeting minutes as, “discussed Board policies and regulations”. School board meeting minutes weren't well documented for a reason and that's why I had been asking for years for Fox's board meetings to be audio and/or video recorded. Not recording school board meetings allowed administration to keep the public in the dark regarding any concerns in the district because, concerns were poorly documented or not documented at all.

July 2013 Article Covering the June 2013 Board Meeting

June 25, 2013 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Minutes

My response to Mr. Brazeal also pointed out the numerous times I had contacted ED OCR for 9 years asking them when they planned to complete the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review or enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. I was informed repeatedly by ED OCR that they were working on it and that they hoped to get it completed soon or in the next several months.

So, the real “story” is, why did it take ED OCR nearly a decade to enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement that the district didn’t fulfill?
Monitoring Letters Sent to Fox
Fox agreed to update board policies and 504 manuals, etc. in 2009. That didn’t happen. The District was sent numerous monitoring letters documenting that fact. So, now in March 2018 the District signed a new Resolution Agreement which closed the District Wide Compliance Review before it was completed and gave the district another window of several years to complete and fulfill that agreement while being “monitored” by ED OCR.

The end of the March 8, 2018 Resolution Agreement contains the following 3 paragraphs that outlines that OCR will be monitoring the agreement and that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms of the agreement. However, similar language was also included in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement as well but ED OCR never initiated enforcement or judicial proceedings after years of not meeting the terms of the agreement.

"The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), and 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.

The District understands that by signing this Agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this Agreement and that all actions taken to comply with the requirements of the Agreement are subject to OCR’s review and approval. Further, the District understands that during the monitoring of this Agreement, if necessary, OCR may visit the District, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.

The District understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings, including to enforce the specific terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10) or judicial proceedings, including to enforce this Agreement, OCR shall give the District written notice of the alleged breach and sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach."

The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter to Fox C-6 is an 11 page letter which details some of the things discovered during their interviews with the district during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.

March 16, 2018 ED OCR District Wide Compliance Review Letter to Fox C-6

The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter contains the following paragraph:

"Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by federal civil rights law. Complaints alleging such retaliation may be filed with OCR. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released."

Retaliation Violates Section 504
I have pointed the fact that retaliation or bullying is a violation of Section 504 law in numerous articles and to our school board over the years. This is why it was such an important fact when it was discovered that online defamatory posts directed at me were traced to the homes of our former superintendent, former assistant superintendent (who was demoted to elementary principal) and the home of a former assistant principal.

What's interesting as well is the fact that an incorrect assumption and the forwarding of false information to Fox's former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow by the Lone Dell Elementary principal is what led to the really nasty defamatory online posts that were traced to Fox's former superintendent's home. It wasn't until the principal at Lone Dell apologized to one of the other plaintiffs in our lawsuit for passing on the incorrect information that I was able to confirm who had forwarded the false information to Critchlow. The Lone Dell principal and the teacher who assumed incorrectly that I was involved in the posting of signs in the District were both directly involved in the 504 issues as well.

We filed retaliation complaints with ED OCR, and provided them with copies of the posts and lawsuit. However, nothing became of those retaliation complaints. It makes you wonder what OCR considers retaliation after reading the numerous comments that were posted online and forwarded to ED OCR and USDA OCR.

ED OCR's Lack of Enforcement

The lack of enforcement by ED OCR is a story in itself. I’ve heard the same story from parents around the country who have experienced the same thing in their school districts. When it takes nearly a decade for ED OCR to do “vigorous enforcement” of the law, you quickly learn that ED OCR must be using a different definition of the word “vigorous” than everyone else.

Plus, the fact that ED OCR did not include in their March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter any references to the denials of Section 504 plans or when Section 504 plans were taken away from students between August 2008 and June 2014 even though ED OCR was aware of those facts from district documentation and Due Process Hearings. I asked the current Director of the Kansas City ED OCR office why nothing was noted in the District Wide Compliance Review letter from the 2008 to 2014 school years. I didn't get a response to that question.

USDA OCR Non-Compliance Findings
I also noted in my response to Mr. Brazeal that USDA OCR had issued findings that found Fox and Missouri DESE non-compliant with Section 504. That non-compliance letter was issued in August 2011. This was noted in my July 2013 article along with a reference to a copy of the non-compliance letter. I also wrote an article in March 2013 regarding the USDA Non-Compliance Findings.

Fox C-6 and MO DESE Undergo USDA Compliance Review

Perhaps items weren’t documented in the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter for the 2008 through June 2014 time frame because things changed in the district in June 2014. That’s when the district switched law firms, our superintendent was ousted and the district switched Section 504 Coordinators.

Following the ouster of the district’s law firm, in August 2014, ED OCR came and did an Early Complaint Resolution which resulted in the reinstatement of a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008. It took nearly 6 years to reinstate a 504 plan that had been removed. That’s the reason why I have been documenting this process and the numerous things that occurred in our district during that time.

The 504 issues going on in our district is what led to my uncovering of other issues involving our former superintendent. People I’ve told about this over the years find it hard to believe all of the things that went on in our district related to this issue. That’s why I have tried to be very thorough in my documenting of it. It's easy to see why Fox wants to sweep all of this under the rug and keep it hidden from the public.

My July 2013 article, documented how slow ED OCR was at following up and enforcing the May 2009 Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker, Fox’s former Section 504 Coordinator. (Current Fox C-6 school board member Vicki Hanson was the Section 504 Coordinator prior to Dan Baker taking over the job when she retired in 2008.)

Another article I wrote in June 2013 pointed out some information sent to me by a parent in the Lee’s Summit School District who had read some of my articles. One thing I did not note in the article back then was the fact that the Lee’s Summit Superintendent was one of the highest paid superintendents in the state and the fact that Fox’s former superintendent Dianne Critchlow was the 4th highest paid superintendent in the state at the time. Critchlow eventually became the 2nd highest paid superintendent in the state when she “retired” in 2014 with a salary of $267,468. The Lee’s Summit superintendent was ousted in May 2016 and was the highest paid superintendent in the state with a compensation package worth $397,000.

March 2016 Kansas City Star Article about Lee’s Summit Superintendent

Below is a link to the June 2013 which pointed out some of my concerns as to why it was taking the Kansas City ED OCR so long to perform their “vigorous enforcement” of Section 504 law.

June 2013 Article - Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!