House Bill 1100 will be signed into law this week by Governor Hickenlooper. The bill allows pregnant women to enter treatment for substance abuse without being prosecuted for using illegal drugs. Chair of the House Health and Environment Committee, Representative Ken Summers, is sponsoring the bill. Before running for office, Representative Summers spent 28 years as an ordained Pastor of an evangelical denomination and has served as an Executive Director of a faith-based nonprofit organization that rehabilitates individuals fighting substance abuse.
He told Catherine Strode, Coordinator of the Health Care Advocacy Program, this personal experience motivated him to sponsor HB 1100 to protect the unborn children of moms who are addicted to drugs. Following is an excerpt from that interview:
If a woman has abused illegal substances, and is pregnant, how does this bill support her efforts in intervention?
“What the bill says is that in criminal proceedings, information related to substance abuse that is obtained during a screening or test performed during pregnancy, is not admissible. This is where the bill itself -we’re not overly prescriptive in the bill. We worked actually closely with some of the individuals through our Human Services Department and the Substance Abuse Task Force and the Attorney General’s office to craft something that was not overly prescriptive to create issues, but as part of the follow-up to the bill. A lot of legislation happens not so much as what is articulated specifically in law, but what happens as a result of that law being applied. So there will be some concerted efforts now from the state …to encourage women, all women, to get the proper treatment if they’re pregnant; and, …to make sure that those health care providers, doctors, OBGYNs, who are interfacing with that woman, know that if you suspect or think that this woman is abusing illegal substances whether it is divulged in an interview or that which is detected through an actual medical test, that it is important for you to get that woman referred to treatment.”
So the bill was really a perfect match for your own personal passionate pursuits in social rehabilitation?
“It really was. Because of that it was really something that I could identify with and understand the need for, and it was more than understanding it from a remote policy standpoint. I could understand it because of the women that we deal with and the programs that we have. When we look at it, you know we think of the challenges where women who are abusing substances are having children. We talk about intergenerational poverty. We’re in a situation now where we’re seeing more and more intergenerational substance and drug abuse. We have women who are mothers of children who’ve got addicted to drugs because of their mother when they were young. For example, one of our moms said ‘I first started using drugs when I smoked pot with my mother when I was fourteen years old.’ Now she’s an adult with a baby but now it’s not marijuana, it’s meth, and is finally dealing with her addiction issue.”
What variety of groups came together to make this bill happen?
“When you look at it, I carried the bill, but it was really the work of the Drug Endangered Children’s Task Force, the Division of Behavioral Health, and Denver Health in their psychiatric drug and substance abuse department. And so we had those organizations coming together. The March of Dimes came out in strong support of the bill because they realized this was about child protection. So with their efforts at mitigating the impact of disabilities that happen during pregnancy, the March of Dimes was very much in favor of the bill and recognized the value of it. The bill, while it can be somewhat misleading in its simplicity, really does have the intent of intervention and protection. Intervention for the mom; protection for that unborn child to make sure that we can minimize the devastating impact of substance abuse on pregnant women.”
March Is the Month to Make Your Mark
Thanks to the advocacy efforts of The Arc in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan officially declared March to be Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month in 1987. For nearly a quarter of a century, The Arc and its network of 700+ chapters across the country, including AdvocacyDenver, have fostered respect and access for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We have made tremendous progress in promoting and protecting the rights of people with I/DD and creating opportunities for them to live, learn and work as valued members of their communities. But there is much work left to do.
In 2012, a pivotal national election year, we are fighting to protect support systems in the face of tough economic times and drastic budget cuts. Since many people with disabilities rely on publicly funded services to fully participate in their communities, policymakers and candidates need to know you concerned about continuing these vital services. Take advantage of Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month to make your mark on this election by getting involved and getting active today.
What Can You Do?
• Jump in. Contact AdvocacyDenver to volunteer or donate.
• Speak out. Contact your legislator or candidate today and let them know you expect them to support public policy to assist people with I/DD.
• Spread the word. Educate yourself about issues important to the I/DD community then tell the world what you found out. Use March as a great excuse to post your positive thoughts about the I/DD movement on your Facebook page or Twitter account. Follow AdvocacyDenver on Facebook and Twitter and express yourself. Or go “old-school” with a good, old-fashioned letter to the editor of your local newspaper explaining to your community why they should care about I/DD.
Join us during March to help raise awareness. Find out more about I/DD and what you can do at www.advocacydenver.org today!
Personal Tragedy Drives Support for House Bill 1085
How does HB 1085 affect the well-being of this particular population?
“It will give equal access to our justice system. Right now a developmentally disabled person who’s been sexually assaulted often doesn’t know to call 9ll. Most of the time these people are taken care of by someone else – a guardian, and so when they do tell someone that they have been harmed, typically it’s not going to be to the police right away. It’s just not in their mindset to do that. They’re going to tell someone else about that crime. And right now – when they tell someone, that information, that statement is not permissible in a court of law. So basically, what 1085 will do, it will allow the opportunity for those statements they made in a safe environment, to someone they trust, to be considered. Then the judge still has to determine if it has reliability and merit. So it’s not automatic. It still has to go through a variety of different channels. But prior to this bill there wasn’t any access for those statements to be entered into a courtroom setting. And so because of that, that gives validation to this community that if you are harmed, there’s an opportunity now that the statements that you share with someone else may be considered.”
Why is this particular population so vulnerable to sexual assault?
“You know, I believe it’s because they’re kind of voiceless. Many of them don’t have the same kind of communication that we have – and so their communication is different. And a lot of times people who care for them understand that basically they can’t defend themselves their whole vocabulary is different and I think people who prey on this population know that. They know that that they can probably get away with this kind of crime because statistics say that 42 per cent of those in that population who have been assaulted are assaulted again because they don’t report it. And if they do report it – very few of those times do those trials go on to court.”
How did this bill come to you?
“Good question. It came to me by an advocacy group that has a host of people on it. It has a couple of DA’s on it from the 18th district, also from Denver DA’s , the aurora police department, and the ARC population and they were just looking at what can we do to tighten that loophole when it comes to that population being assaulted because statistics say that 80 per cent of people developmentally disabled people will be assaulted and 32 per cent of men. That’s a high number. And at this point only one percent goes to trial.”
I’ve listened to your arguments on the floor and you are quite passionate and I just wanted to know what it is about this issue that stirs your own personal passions?
“For me it was because of my own personal tragedy. My son was murdered and I was his only voice and presence in the courtroom. He was silent because he was dead. And he was murdered because he was going to be a witness in a trial and so I had to bring voice to his testimony because he was no longer with us. And so that reminded me of this population. This same population doesn’t have a voice, they don’t have an advocate. And so I was glad to be their advocate, so they could have greater access to justice because when someone does something wrong, they should be held accountable for it. And if these people are revictimized over and over again because they don’t have a voice. Then some thing needs to be done to correct that injustice.”
How do the advocates feel that it will affect their work if the bill is passed?
“I’ve gotten such support from the advocacy community because basically I get the impression that this is an area that has just not been addressed. It’s not been something that anyone wants to talk about. Seven other states have this similar law – so Colorado’s not going to be the first. We will be the eighth. Who knows if any other states are considering it but only seven other states have this law. This law is modeled after the same language of the law we have for children who have been sexually assaulted. Now . that law came into place in 1983. It has been vetted and constitutionally it’s sound. So we’re using the same language and verbage for that population. We’re just now making sure that those who are developmentally disabled have the same option.”
For those who say it will be a double edged sword for those who are defending the same population – what is your response to that?
“You know, I have great confidence, in our criminal justice system. The way our criminal justice system is set up is to make sure the scales are balanced and so I’ve sat through court proceedings and anything that’s not considered reliable goes through a variety of different measures and protocols and I have confidence that if it has merit and proves that it can be used in a court of law and can go through all those hurdles, I think it’s going to be just fine. I think our system is big enough and great enough and strong enough to find justice in any situation.”
State Medicaid Director Suzanne Brennan Discusses Gaps in Speciality Care
Listen to Part II of the interview
What are some of the gaps that you see in the service delivery system as it is currently?
“Access to specialists for sure. There are some gaps there. There not a lot of specialists that actually take Medicaid clients. We’re also seeing that there are fewer and fewer providers that accept Medicare as well. So were seeing some general access to care issues.”
How is Colorado’s approach different from other states in coordinating care under the dual eligible program? How do you think it will differ?
“Colorado is on the forefront in terms of implementing an accountable care organization –that we call the ACC, the accountable care collaborative. And many states are coming to us to understand. what we are doing with our ACC program and how is it structured. So that is very different than other states. The other thing we’re looking at is how do we make sure that we’re connecting some different systems of care. So we have a very good PACE program in Colorado that is designed for individuals that meet nursing home level of care. We want to make sure we keep that and that we build on it. We also have Medicare special needs plans as well that do some coordination for dual eligibles, but there’s a large number of dual eligibles out there that are in the fee for service unmanaged network. We want to make sure that when we design the accountable care collaborative to meet the needs of the duals that it connects to the PACE continuum of care as well as to Medicare SNIPS. We’re working that out. So that to me is what’s kind of unique. We want to leverage what’s strong in the state and then build on that and make sure we’re keeping the connections.”
I know a lot has been said about the savings projected in the dual eligible redesign. Where would the savings come from and why do you think it would create savings for the state?
“Now we haven’t actually measured the savings but we believe the savings will come from reduced avoidable hospitalizations and reduced ER usage and reduced need for specialty care as well. So ideally, I view it I view it as the life cycle of an individual and how do you keep them healthier longer so they need less acute care? So the idea is if you’re really staying on top of what a patient needs and helping them to manage their chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, COPD, congestive heart failure, if you’re helping them to manage those conditions they’re going to need less acute care over time. So it will take time for the savings to accrue because you actually have to understand what’s happening with your patients, very proactively and then monitoring them over time. So this is not like flipping a switch in terms of cost savings – like okay we’re going to coordinate services for the duals and in six months we’re going to see savings. It’s going to take longer than that.”
State Medicaid Director Suzanne Brennan Discusses Dual Eligibles
Listen to Part I of the interview
“In Colorado we have approximately 71,000 individuals who are dually eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. And those individuals actually represent 13% of our total Medicaid population. Those dual eligible individuals who are receiving Medicaid benefits account for 43 % of our Medicaid budget. That is about 1.2 billion dollars. It’s quite a large expenditure for a relatively small percentage of the population. Now that being said, these are very high need individuals. 60% of the individuals who are dual eligible are elderly, and 40% are actually individuals with some sort of a disability. So they have high needs and we want to make sure that we are serving them appropriately. 60 percent of those individuals actually have multiple chronic physical conditions and 20 % have more than one mental or cognitive condition. We want to make sure that we are coordinating care for them, making sure that they get all the services they need to deal with these intense physical and behavioral health conditions that they have.”
I’m aware that some states have started to design models for this Medicare/Medicaid integration. Which state would Colorado be modeling its design after and why?
“Now there are some states that are doing an excellent job in terms of redesigning their delivery system – with a focus on accountable care organizations and health homes and I’d say two of the leading states in the country are North Carolina and Vermont. Now they might not be specifically doing something around the dual eligibles but their work in coordinating care is so significant that that is really what we’re modeling ourselves after.”
In what way?
“Vermont has something called the Blueprint for Health and they have a very strong system they’ve designed that’s very integrated and systematic and has community healthcare coordinators who are very effective and work across different insurance products as well. So that’s one example. In North Carolina, their model is built on a very strong Medical Home model – and so that’s something we’ve built into our ACC for that very reason based on North Carolina’s success.”
What are the greatest challenges you foresee in creating this redesign of Medicaid and Medicare?
“I’d say some of the greatest challenges are making sure that we leverage the infrastructures we’ve already built and that they’re seamless connections. As I mentioned earlier, the idea that we do have a good PACE program in Colorado, we do have Medicare special needs plans, yet there are many people who are still in that uncoordinated fee for service system.We need to make sure we’re tying those things together and leveraging them appropriately. So that’s one challenge. I think making sure that we have an adequate provider network. Ideally, providers would take both Medicaid and Medicare so they can do a better job coordinating care for their patients.”
Part II: Interview on Health Benefits Exchange with Senator Boyd
Listen to Part II of the interview
Senator, what do you view as the biggest challenges facing the Health Benefit Exchange in Colorado?
“I think the two biggest challenges are the timelines and finding the money that it’s going to take to develop an appropriate IT system. Colorado’s had a pretty spotty record in the past with some of their IT systems. We need to have a good system for the Exchange itself, but in addition to that, there needs to be a good eligibility determination process and the reality is our current Colorado Benefits Management System is not going to be up to the task I don’t think. There are some challenges because CBMS already integrates eligibility determination for Medicaid and for human services programs. A lot of states haven’t gone that far to integrate those eligibilities but we have and as a result it’s not just making the distinction between Medicaid and those served in the Exchange because of all the other human services components. You can’t just throw them together.”
What is your opinion of the federal government throwing it to the states to establish their own essential health benefits?
“It sure does create more challenges for the state because we were assuming that there would be some really good guidance but I don’t think there is. So at the same the time the exchange itself is being developed, the rules around what that package is going to look like are working and right now the commissioner of insurance is having some town hall kinds of meetings to try and help determine what those essential benefits will be for Colorado because the exchange is really a marketplace and the commissioner of insurance still has the same role as before.”
Do you have an opinion on whether the Affordable Care Act will stand?
“I believe it will. But whether or not it does, we have said all along our intent is to create an Exchange regardless of what happened it would certainly be harder to deal with some of the financing ultimately of those participants who would be included in the Exchange because the share of the participants is anticipated to be receiving some kind of subsidy. This is the place where they should be getting their insurance.”
Part I: Senator Boyd to sponsor transfer bill
In Part I of her interview with Catherine Strode, Senator Boyd discussed asked the proposed transfer of services for the elderly and services for people with developmental disabilities to the Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing.
Listen to Part I of the interview
Senator Boyd, What do you think about the potential transfer and will you be sponsoring a bill to authorize the transfer?
“I will confirm. I will carry a Bill. The intent of the Bill, as I see it, is to initially consolidate the administrative function in one department so that HCPF has responsibility for everything Medicaid. And as I see it, that was just Phase One of the whole process. There would be no change immediately in the way services are delivered. I think there is fear about that. But Phase Two would be a very extensive stakeholder process that would determine the best options for service delivery in the future which might take a year or even longer. But there is that second phase planned. So other than who the employees relate to, which department cuts their check, there should not be any immediate change in service delivery and I think that’s one thing people are really worried about. There are those who are saying ‘you are putting the cart before the horse.’ I think the sooner that we can at least consolidate those administrative functions, the better. I know HCPF is doing a lot of consumer and stakeholder work and they’re doing more in the near term.”
Your bill, then, would strictly address Phase One, that is, the administrative transfer of duties?
“I understand it likely will do Phase One and have language directing Phase Two.”
What do you think could be the benefits of the HCPF transfer administratively?
“I think for openers we as a state are required to have one Medicaid agency, one agency that handles all of the Medicaid. Because at the time that Medicaid came into existence, HCPF didn’t exist. It was the Department of Health and Human Services and everything was in one department. But when HCPF was formed, they took the financial function and Medicaid. But it was worked out so the service delivery happened through human services. So this is trying to get back to having a consolidation of what seems to be a better way of organizing so Medicaid is all in one place. And as we look at long term care, which is the big and growing issue and will be the huge issue in the not too distant future with the explosion of aging baby boomers, we’ve got to be looking very carefully at how we deliver long term care services. I think it would create some really important efficiencies.”
Which health care bills being presented in this legislative session will have the greatest impact?
“Of those that are in the hopper right now, I would say this bill for the consolidation of those programs and HCPF.”
How do you think this bill will affect the future of Medicaid in the state of Colorado?
“Hopefully it would make Medicaid care more efficiently managed.”
Approaching: Medicaid Buy-in Program for Working Adults with Disabilities
Coloradans with disabilities have long faced the complex issue of accessing Medicaid benefits while not crossing the fine line of generating too much income as to render them ineligible. They’ve also found themselves in instances where they’ve fallen through the cracks coverage-wise while transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare during long wait periods or where they wish to retain Medicaid coverage as a back up to Medicare coverage. Luckily, a new Medicaid Buy-in Program for Working Adults with Disabilities is on the brink of release and will hopefully provide a solution for these situations.
Beginning in March 1, 2012, working Coloradans ages 16 through 64 who have a disability will be able to apply for the Medicaid Buy-in Program for Working Adults by completing an application through their local regional county office, online at Colorado.gov/PEAK (or call 1-800-221-3943 for information). Accepted applicants will be offered the chance to pay monthly premiums based on their income for Medicaid benefits such as office visits, hospitalizations, x-rays, home health services, durable medical equipment and prescription medications. There is, however, a cap on how much working adults with disabilities may generate in income. Applicants may earn up to 450% of the federal poverty line (roughly $45,009). Income disregards will be applied prior to determining an applicant’s income for the purposes of this program.
To learn more about this program and how it may benefit you please check out this Fact Sheet and, if you have questions, please contact Kimberley Smith with the Colorado Department of Health Care and Financing Policy (303-866-3991/800-659-2656 TTY/TDD).
Note: This blog was written/edited by AdvocacyDenver with resource and editing assistance from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.
Inclusion in the School System
Beginning in 1976, AdvocacyDenver (formerly ARC of Denver) has promoted the belief that individuals with disabilities belong in the community and have a fundamental moral, civil and constitutional right to be fully included and actively participate in all aspects of society. The National organization adopted this belief in 1998.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees our children a right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Certainly the Denver Public Schools (DPS) provides our children with disabilities a free education; the ongoing debate is in relation to how DPS implements the IDEA, what is appropriate and moreover what is the least restrictive environment. The IDEA provides that:
“To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities will be educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”
Supplementary aids and services means aids, services, and other supports that are provided in accordance with the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Supplementary aids and services must be based on the child’s individual needs and could include: supports to address environmental needs, special equipment, additional adult support, planning time for staff, accommodations in the way subject matter is presented, assignment modifications, test adaptations social interaction support and staff training. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the IDEA, these supports/services are to be provided in general education classes, other education-related settings, and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings to allow the child to be educated with nondisabled peers.
Denver Public Schools asserts that they are in compliance with federal law:
“Department of Special Education is committed to providing an educational experience based upon the individual needs of each child as prescribed and defined by the federal Individual with Disabilities Improvement and the state Exceptional Children’s Education Act. The Department provides specialized instruction for students to minimize the impact of their disability through a continuum of services, ranging from services provided in the general education classroom to fully contained classroom settings.”
AdvocacyDenver asserts that there is a disconnect between what the District outlines in written statements and the actual day-to-day practice of the District and schools. Significant areas of ongoing concern in relation to DPS include, but aren’t limited, to the following:
- The standard practice to assign students with cognitive disabilities to center programs;.
- The standard practice to limit the level of support/services (one-size-fits-all) for children with mild/moderate disabilities enrolled in charter, contract, redesigned, turnaround and/or neighborhood schools;
- The standard practice to provide school principals with the authority to determine whether to accept or refuse a student with a disability for enrollment.
DPS Practice Number 1: Standard assignment of students with cognitive disabilities to center programs.
The district does not exhaust building level interventions or less restrictive educational settings. The IDEA asserts that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of our children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Parents report that in most cases the school staff are reluctant to try anything outside the norm to accommodate a student with a cognitive disability. In fact, outside the IEP process, school staff will typically tell the parent, exactly what services they can/will provide and the setting in which the services will be provided (e.g. I pull kids out for resource). In some cases school staff will say they would love to have the student attend the school but district special education administration will not provide them with the resources (e.g. paraprofessional staff) to support the student in the general education setting. In this instance school staff is telling the absolute truth. DPS Student Services Program Managers have been carefully coached to categorically deny paraprofessional support and to phrase it in such a way as to not be in blatant violation of IDEA. In addition, it would appear that DPS has crafted a standard and IDEA compliant rationale statement to be included on the IEP of every student who receives services outside the general education setting:
“In order to meet (child’s name) needs in the areas of (name areas, e.g. behavior, math), (child’s name) requires services outside the general classroom as described in his/her IEP.”
Furthermore, many center program students have few if any opportunities to participate in academic, non-academic or school related activities with typical peers. If the short yellow bus transports the student to and from school and the school offers any before or after school activities (e.g. clubs), be assured that the center program student will not be afforded an opportunity to participate in such activities because the District does not offer center program students with before/after school activity transportation. Some children never see the light of day outside of a segregated school setting. In fact, too often inclusive opportunities are limited to eating your lunch in close proximity to nondisabled students because of the mandatory assignment to sit at the lunch table with the center program paraprofessional and other center program students. Both the district and schools offer different excuses. The District asserts that because of school autonomy they can make recommendations about best practices/LRE, but have no authority over school staff or principals. School staff says that the district doesn’t provide enough paraprofessional support staff, or, general education teachers aren’t receptive to including children with more significant disabilities. There is a certain amount of truth to what each side is saying. The district is not terribly generous with resources and sometimes general education teachers do not welcome children with more significant needs. In some instances, special education teachers do not share the value that all children should have an opportunity to participate in activities with typical peers. Student Services leadership is correct in stating that each DPS school has a certain amount of autonomy. The school principal sets the tone for the building and this leader can either encourage segregated programming (separate, “but equal”) or lead a model where different abilities are celebrated and all children are woven into the tapestry of the school community.
DPS Standard Practice Number 2: The practice to limit the level of support/services (one-size-fits-all) for children with mild/moderate disabilities enrolled in charter, contract, magnet, redesigned, turnaround and/or neighborhood schools.
IDEA requires that the school district provide a continuum of services and that decisions be based on the individual needs of the child. The DPS Board of Education has policies (see policy IHBA and IHBA-R Children or Youth with Educational Disabilities) and the Department of Special Education has adopted procedures that comply with federal law. DPS policy IHBA states:
“Denver Public Schools believes that inclusive school communities are those in which all students are valued members of the educational environment and all students have access to, and participate in, opportunities within the school and community at large, based on their strengths, talents and individual needs.”
Yet parents and advocates report that rather than defining services according to the individual needs of the child, school IEP teams frequently craft the IEP according to building level resources or preferred practice. It is not uncommon for the staff at one school to say “we pull kids out and serve them in the resource room” and for the staff at a different school to say “we don’t offer any pull-out, all kids are served in the general classroom” and so on. School staff will frequently say that the district does not provide them with the resources to facilitate a basic continuum of services (consultation, direct services in the general education classroom, direct services outside the general education classroom). Furthermore, there are disparities between the areas/skills an IEP team will target for a student to work on (e.g. social skills/social development). The IEP team at one school will assert that services need only be designed to facilitate the students progress/access to academic programming, while the IEP team at another school will define specific goals in relation to social development and identify the school psychologist/social worker as the provider. Again, school staff will confide that such decisions are contingent on the amount of time a mental health specialist (psychologist/social worker) is assigned to the school; moreover, the individual provider’s level of comfort and training in facilitating mental health services for students with differing disabilities.
DPS special education leadership point to the different department procedures as evidence of compliance but also confirm parent and advocate observations are correct and again, assert disparities are largely a result of school autonomy. School principals are given ultimate authority to determine staffing (e.g. Do I want to purchase 4 hours or 20 hours of psychological/social work services a week.) as well as programming decisions. The school principal establishes the culture of the school and is in a key position to welcome all learners and promote a model that allows for instruction and services based on individual needs. Unfortunately an increasing number of parents and advocates report (and some educators confide) that DPS gives preference to a breed of school principals who deliberately, or at time naively encourage a single model for servicing students with disabilities.
DPS Standard Practice Number 3: The practice to provide school principals with the authority to determine whether to accept or refuse to enroll a student with a disability.
Colorado law regarding school choice allows each school district to adopt policies and procedures in relation to choice for resident and non-resident students. DPS Board of Education policies JC Pupil Assignment and JC-R All Schools – Pupil Assignment Procedures (Revised June 30, 2010) appropriately discuss schools of choice, transfer and assignment procedures.
The issue at hand is the way in which Board policy is being interpreted and implemented. First, it is important to state that DPS’s school model is a moving target. It would appear that within the next few years the district will have eliminated neighborhood schools and instead families will “apply” to have their child enroll at the contract, charter, magnet, special program, turnaround or redesigned school down the street, or across the city. The District does not provide a common application and enrollment process for all of the different school models, except, the Schools of Choice Office has posted two brochures on their web, one discussing procedures for nondisabled students; the second titled “Traditional Choice Application Students with Disabilities.” It is here where the District states: “approval for enrollment of a student with a disability is on the condition that the services outlined in the student’s plan (IEP or Section 504 plan) can be delivered in the school,” and that the principal and the special education teacher (for whom the principal conducts employee appraisals of the school staff) who make this determination. Board of Education policy appropriately does not provide school principals the authority to arbitrarily refuse students with disabilities. However, the fact that students with disabilities are clearly underrepresented in the District’s Charter and magnet schools is likely a direct result of blatantly discriminatory department procedures and the way in which those procedures are applied.
Equally worrisome,, an increasing number of parents report (and some educators confide) that if a child does not perform at an expected level (academically or behaviorally) some school principals will counsel parents to withdraw their child from the school. It is important to remember that contract, charter, magnet, special program, turnaround, redesigned and neighborhood schools are all public schools and as such, have an obligation to serve students with disabilities. Albeit, they do not have to provide a full continuum, but it is expected they will provide basic supports according to the individual needs of the student.
Accordingly,
It shall be the priority for AdvocacyDenver (Agency and educational advocates) staff (educational advocates) to support DPS parents whose children are:
- systematically placed in a center program; or,
- not appropriately being served because the IEP team has failed to consider the type and location of services according to the individual needs of the child; or
- denied enrollment or are encouraged to withdraw enrollment from a DPS contract, charter, magnet, special program, turnaround, redesigned and/or neighborhood school.
Educational advocates will request copies of educational records, in addition to any and all documentation from all members of school staff and District administrators (e.g. emails, data collection, notes) that discuss IEP, program location, school assignment and/or enrollment decisions.
Educational advocates will exhaust school and administrative remedies to resolve issues. When appropriate, an educational advocate will discuss and encourage families to file formal complaints with the appropriate state or federal agency. Agency leadership and legal counsel will determine when and if class action litigation would be appropriate.
Agency leadership and staff will continue to discuss and work with DPS Student Services, other district leadership, DPS Board of Education, and other state and federal agencies to reach resolution regarding systemic concerns.
2011: A Snapshot of Advocacy
Two-thousand eleven was quite a busy year here at AdvocacyDenver. Individual advocacy was in great demand and each advocate pulled through (and continues to do so!) to provide quality advocacy support to individuals with disabilities and their families. To analyze the amount and types of support provided, AdvocacyDenver tracks its core programming through the use of a Clients Database. This gives us insight to the trends and barriers confronting individuals with disabilities residing in Denver and enables us to plan strategically. Here’s a snapshot of what 2011 looked like:
How many clients did we support in 2011 and what type of support was that?
The graph summarizes the overall advocacy support provided by AdvocacyDenver in 2011. The combined bars in the graph identify 269 clients (new and on-going) that received different forms of advocacy support in 2011.
How many individual advocacy issues did AdvocacyDenver support in 2011?
The graph summarizes the advocacy issues addressed by AdvocacyDenver as a whole in 2011. The total number of issues addressed in 2011 is 289.
For more information about the types of individual advocacy trends in 2011 please contact Catherine Strode at cstrode@advocacydenver.org.