I am a member of the San Francisco Unified School District Community Advisory Committee for Special Education. The CAC-SPED is a group of parents of children with disabilities and our mission is to advocate for effective special education programs for children in our district (SFUSD). One of our strategies is to create and distribute a newsletter to get information and support out to a wider grouping of parents than can attend our meetings.

In September 2006, administrators agreed to translate this newsletter into Chinese and Spanish, and print and mail it out three times a year to all families who have a child in special education. We wanted to reach out to low-income parents of children with disabilities who have no computers, to parents who do not speak English and do not get access to as much information about their rights as English speaking families do, and to parents who work two jobs and do not have time to scour the internet to double-check what special education administrators tell them about services their children are entitled to. Because many of these parents are not aware of their basic rights under the system their children are not always getting the services they need in order to receive an appropriate education.

The most recent newsletter was due out in October 2007, and the CAC-SPED sent the district the text well ahead of time in July of 2007. But despite the lengthy advance time, seven months later and still without a newsletter, we are suddenly informed that our “Advocating For Your Child” section on pages 2 & 3, has been deemed “inappropriate” by district legal counsel and therefore removed. (See complete text of the memo sent by Miguel Márquez, General Counsel of SFUSD’s Legal Department, at the end of this column).

Below is one of the questions and answers that was removed by the district, which the CAC-SPED feels is just the kind of information that parents are most in need of:

Q. I disagree with a recent school district evaluation of my child — what can I do about that?

A: If you disagree with the School District’s assessment or evaluation of your child, you are entitled to get an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at district expense. This request must be made in writing. You do not have to use an evaluator from a list the district gives you.

The essence of Mr. Márquez’ concern is that since the newsletter is being sent out by the District, the Question and Answer sections could potentially be interpreted as legal advice being provided by the SFUSD. Suffice it to say that we stand behind what we wrote and it is legal information, not legal advice. When the district agreed to send out our newsletter, they made no mention of having editorial control over its content. If they are worried about liability because of our opinions, a simple, prominent disclaimer in the newsletter stating that these are the views of individuals on the CAC and not of SFUSD would be an easy solution.

The district contends that the CAC has exceeded its role by providing this information, and cites Section 56194 of the California Education Code, wherein the responsibilities of the CAC-SPED are laid out. Not only do these responsibilities explicitly include educating and supporting parents of individuals with special needs, but the code also clearly states that the CAC’s responsibilities should not be limited to the tasks enumerated in the code. In other words, we have some discretion to do what we think is necessary to educate parents. Teaching parents how to advocate for services for their children is certainly an important aspect of parent education.

A further issue raised by Mr. Márquez is that our answers to the questions are only partial. Obviously it would be impossible to cover all aspects of Special Education law pertinent to the common questions parents ask within the space of two pages. The answers in the newsletter are offered as reasonable starting points for any parent facing the issues raised in the questions, basic questions which we feel would be irresponsible to ignore.

The “Advocating For Your Child” section of our newsletter is there to dispel the common and constant misinformation given to parents of children with disabilities in our district. Deleting this column in its entirety is nothing more than a shameful attempt to keep parents from knowing their rights by a school district that is well-known for its systemic non-compliance with special education laws.

While I am angered by the district’s response to our newsletter, I am pleased, however, with Mr. Márquez’s statements about the CAC-SPED at last being allowed to play a role in the development of the Local Plan, which is a plan required by the California State Department of Education that describes how the district will provide special education services.

The Ed Code stipulates that the CAC and teachers are to take part in the Local Plan’s development, amendment and review, but oddly enough, David Wax, the SELPA director, has always asserted that the CAC is not supposed to play any role whatsoever in the Local Plan’s development. All he does is show us the Local Plan, and then tell us to sign a piece of paper saying that we have seen it.

It is very sad that our volunteer efforts to help parents know their rights can be blocked so intentionally, and without any apparent permission to do so from members of the Board of Education, whom we are supposed to serve in an advisory capacity. The unsuppressed October Newsletter can be found at http://tinyurl.com/365st4. Please pass it on.

Katy Franklin is the parent of a child enrolled in a San Francisco public school and is a member of the SFUSD Community Advisory Committee for Special Education.

[What follows is the complete copy of the email memo received last week by the author from Miguel Márquez, General Counsel of SFUSD’s Legal Department.]

Members of the Special Education Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
FROM: Miguel Márquez, General Counsel
DATE: February 4, 2008
RE: CAC Newsletter

It has come to the attention of the Legal Office that the SFUSD Special Education Local Education Plan Area (SELPA) agreed to print a newsletter twice per year to be sent to parents of students who receive special education services. Upon review, it was discovered that the newsletter contained inappropriate information in the “Question and Answer” section.

Please be assured that the District will honor its commitment to publish the CAC’s newsletters. However, these newsletters will be subject to review and their content will be limited to the areas of CAC’s responsibilities as enumerated in Section 56194 of the California Education Code. This includes advising the District, SELPA, and/or county office regarding the development, amendment and review of the local plan; recommending annual priorities to be addressed by the plan; assisting in parent education and in recruiting parents and other volunteers who may contribute to the implementation of the plan; encouraging community involvement in the development and review of the plan; supporting activities on behalf of individuals with exceptional needs; and assisting in parent awareness of the importance of regular school attendance.

The question and answer section you included in the last newsletter exceeds the scope of providing this type of assistance to parents. The questions are framed from a legal advocacy point of reference and provide only partial responses to the questions posed. Moreover, the newsletter will be printed and sent by the District; therefore, the contents could be construed to be endorsed by the District. For these reasons, among others, the question and answer section will be removed.

Please feel free to contact the Legal Office should you have any questions regarding this memorandum or the role of the CAC in general.