State findings [1]
Columbia
Notes: These findings are public
record, and are available upon request from the state. These are paraphrases They are close to the original
language, but are not exact copies of the original wording. I have
omitted some parts. The names of the complainants are also public
record, but I have chosen not to place them online. Following
each message, I have added a brief comment of my own--this is MY
OWN COMMENT, not a legal opinion. My own interpolations are all
within square brackets--everything else is a paraphrase of the
document.
COLUMBIA:
A Parent complained that the
Columbia district was violating the following four standards:
OAR 581-22-403: Identification
of TAG Students (now 581-022-1310)
OAR 581-22-404: Rights of
Parents (now 581-022-1320)
OAR 581-22-520: Instructional
Materials (now 581-022-1640)
OAR 581-22-530: Postponement of
Purchase of State Adopted Instructional Materials (now
581-22-1650)
The parent had a middle school
student.
In response, the district
acknowledged that in 1995-6, student identification was not done
in as timely a manner as the district would like; however the
process was done. The student's school did not schedule
parent/staff meetings to discuss the instructional program for
students until mid-April.
The District further stated that the building had
taken steps to ensure the identification process occurs during
the first quarter of the school year and meetings with parents
occur at the first regularly scheduled parent conferences.
The District acknowledged
failure to meet timeline requirements for materials adoptions and
not filing the correct waiver request.
The State requested
documentation the following year that the identification process
had taken place in the first quarter of the year, that meetings
with parents had occurred at the first conferences, and the
district had taken steps to purchase materials and apply for
waivers.
The principal of the middle
school sent a memo saying that in the 1996-7 school year,
students were
identified in the fall and the
staff met with most parents during the fall conferences
"using the old procedures" [These are not further
defined--M.E.D.] One student was missed during the 1996-7 school
year. The school developed a plan and shared it with the parents
when the school became aware of the oversight. The missed student
was the child of the appellant. There were no written District
procedures to ensure that the TAG policy would be implemented.
[I am omitting the textbook
material: the district subsequently submitted a schedule for
adoptions. MED]
DISCUSSION: State law does not
specify timelines for TAG services. Specific time frames are left
up to the local school boards. However, when those timelines are
so delayed as to effectively deny TAG students their rights, the
District forfeits its discretion....
A reasonable timeline would be:
All TAG students enrolled at the first of the school year should
be receiving TAG services no later than the end of the first nine
weeks
All previously identified TAG
students should be receiving instruction within two weeks of the
beginning of the school year
Transfer students or new
referrals should be receiving instruction within 30 school days
of the initial referral.
State law does not mandate
district policies and procedures; they simply mandate services.
For district and public awareness, assurance that the activity
will occur and documentation in the event of a dispute, policies
and procedures are essential. The policies state the destination
for the district and the procedures provide a road map. Policies
lack meaning without written procedures which often include
timelines and specific staff responsibilities. These are
particular important when there is staff turnover. ....
RECOMMENDATION: The district
shall within 90 days submit a plan for compliance. It shall
include
(a) the procedures the District
will adopt to assure the TAG statute and standards are met
(b) plans for in-service so all
staff understand the District's legal responsibilities for TAG
students.
Dated July 28, 1997
[Comments by Margaret--This
recommendation antedates the Portland findings. The timelines
suggested were later applied to the Portland appeal. Other school
districts should be aware that these timelines have
been established by the state as
"reasonable" now in two separate decisions and that
school districts should be close to this timeline for services to
avoid appeals.
The school district wrote that
it was meeting the requirements of the mandate for all students
except, by an astonishing coincidence, it had unaccountably
failed to provide services for just one student--who happened to
be the daughter of the complainant! I find this unconvincing,
although without a copy of the original appeal it is difficult to
reconstruct the chain of events. I would not be surprised to
learn that many students in that district were
"inadvertently overlooked." I can find no evidence in
this complaint that the state investigated the district beyond
simply reading the district's response, and the state does not
suggest that any further investigation will take place. The
Recommendations are considerably more vague than those imposed in
later appeals, when the State had more experience; for example,
the recommendations do not actually require the district to
provide a written TAG policy and procedures manual, which might
have been expected from the language of the decision.]
Return to Resources for
Portland Area TAG parents