Felix compliance The state is asking a federal judge to reduce court oversight of educational and mental services for special-needs children because it has reached "substantial compliance" in the Felix consent decree.
under debate
The state says it has made
progress in special education,
a claim plaintiffs disputeBy Crystal Kua
ckua@starbulletin.comBut attorneys for plaintiffs say a finding of substantial compliance is "premature" because the state is not there yet, and the court should continue to watch over the state at the same level.
These are the positions the state and the plaintiffs are taking in court-filed responses to the Felix court-appointed monitor Ivor Groves' report, which recommends a lessened role for the court because benchmarks are substantially complete.
The state, through the departments of Health and Education, had until March 31 to comply with remaining consent decree benchmarks including having all schools in full compliance.
U.S. District Judge David Ezra will hold a compliance hearing on June 10.
The state agreed to enter into the 1994 consent decree -- named for special-needs plaintiff Jennifer Felix -- to come into compliance with federal law by improving educational and mental services for special-needs children.
In his report released last month, Groves said the state has made sufficient improvement in services to children covered by the decree.
But he also said the state has several areas that need to be improved and has to demonstrate that it can maintain the progress. He recommended that court oversight continue for two years but in a reduced capacity.
While plaintiffs agree that significant progress has been made since 1994, they do not agree that the state has reached substantial compliance.
"The 'seamless system of care' which is the goal of the consent decree is not yet sufficiently in place to permit a reduction in independent oversight," according to the plaintiffs' filing.
For example, the filing notes, at least three school complexes -- a high school and its feeder schools -- are not considered in full compliance, and nine other complexes currently seen as in compliance actually have fallen short of the 85 percent minimum score in service testing, the assessment used to determine if complexes meet the decree's requirements.
The plaintiffs also complain that the state Department of Education does not sufficiently include the parents when devising a strategy for serving a special-needs child. "The evidence available to the plaintiffs is that often the DOE either doesn't know how to engage parents, or actively resists partnerships with parents," the plaintiffs say.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to enforce the 85 percent passing score for each complex and appoint a monitor to succeed Groves to assure that remaining complexes attain the necessary resources to reach compliance by Nov. 30.
But Deputy Attorney General Holly Shikada wrote that the roles of Groves, court special master Jeff Portnoy and the plaintiffs' attorneys should either be reduced or eliminated.
"It is time for the state to prove that it can sustain the system of care it has created," Shikada wrote.
The state says it has met or is close to meeting all the requirements set by the court.
State Department of Education
