1. I just got the Attorney General’s reply:


    Note page 69:

    “Additionally, the District has entered into numerous special education due process settlements over the years where, as part of the settlements, students disenroll from the District and the District continues to pay ‘money for some aspect of their education over the term of the agreement. (See R-16). While not challenging the validity of these settlements, they are nevertheless concerning. Districts receive no special education funding through the formula for students who disenroll from the district. (8T36).32 Therefore, the District would receive no aid to pay far these settlements given tie students have disenrolled. From 2012 through 2018, the District entered into settlements totaling approximately $10,176,771 in which students have disenrolled from the district. (See R-16). It is unclear what funds have been used to pay out the $10,176,711 to students no longer enrolled in the District.”

    What funds? I think they are YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

    I was shocked when I receive the document from the state in June before the state presented its case:


    We paid $10 million to dis-enroll children for two or three years. What is the sense of that? Couldn’t they renter the district after two or three years?

    But then, when you look at another document I got from the state, the corruption became more apparent:


    Note in 2011 eleven non-approved placements. (page 1).

    The state directed the district to cease non-approved placements. (page 7).

    Note the report of State Monitor Sinatra, “”[S]eventy-three litigation cases during the 2014-2015 school year. Many of these cases centered on special education students being educated in non-approved [schools].” (page 5).

    What can we conclude about the settlements for $10 million? How many were for non-approved placements? Once the kids dis-enroll they could not reenroll and get the same placement since the practice ostensibly ended around 2012. On the other hand, had they not dis-enrolled, it would have been easy for an attorney to get a stay-put order and attorney fees to keep them in their placement. So the attorney gets a big settlement to dis-enroll them.

    I wonder if the same attorney that supervised placements until 2012 represented students in the dis-enrollments and/or easy stay-put orders afterwards in private practice. In my opinion, these kinds of cases do not require great litigation skills.

    Hence the fairy tale of it being cheaper for someone to be on the inside than on the outside. Even if true, it is an insult to the public trust.

    A Lang


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here