What’s Wrong With Neuse Charter School?

Owen at the Challenger Pop Warner Super Bowl

Unless otherwise noted or is clear as fact, the below constitutes my opinion. None of my opinions should be construed in any way as statements of fact.

Pinning this at the top of this post — I’m raising funds for legal fees so we can hold Neuse Charter School accountable for what they’ve done to Owen. Please either contribute or share. Thanks!

The picture above is of my son Owen. He’s the one not with the big black ears. It was taken this past December at the Pop Warner Super Bowl Challenger Division game. The Challenger Division is a structured football program for participants with special needs, and he has both played and been on the cheer squad. Owen is autistic, and addition to playing in the Challenger games, he’s participated in a special needs baseball league and a special needs theater program, he’s on the high school cheer team, and he plays the drums and piano. Everyone loves Owen — just watch the video below from his big moment at the Special Olympics in April of last year and listen to the cheers he gets.

What does any of this have to do with “Exceptional and Extraordinary”? Nothing, really. I just wanted to start this story out by giving you a bit of an idea about what an exceptional child Owen is (pun intended) and how much he’s loved by, well, everyone.

That’s not quite true. The vast majority of students, teachers, and staff at his school, Neuse Charter School in Smithfield, NC (NCS), both know and love him. But some of the administration and members of the school’s EC program don’t seem to like him, or the other EC students at the school, much at all. I believe that the school doesn’t want any EC students enrolled, and I believe that the school has gone to extraordinary lengths, including breaking federal law, in an attempt to drive all of its EC students out. This belief is supported by evidence of multiple violations by the school, and is shared by a number of others including Owen’s mother and former EC staff members at NCS. And we believe that it all come down to one thing: reputation.

I don’t want to get into the arcana of the federal laws around special needs students, but here are some important points.

• Charter schools in North Carolina are public schools, and are subject to all of the state and federal laws governing public schools.
• The IDEA is the federal law governing the education of students with disabilities. Autism is a disability that falls under IDEA.
• The IDEA states that all EC students are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible.
• Each EC student has an individualized education plan (IEP) that includes modifications to allow the student to receive FAPE in the LRE.

Enough acronyms for you? Moving on.

Owen’s IEP specifies now, and has in all his past years at NCS, that one of the primary modifications he receives is to have a “one to one assistant,” a helper who is with him throughout the school day. With this assistant, Owen is able to be in regular classes — that is, the LRE — as opposed to a “self-contained” EC class setting, a separate class with only EC students of various grades.

This had worked fine for Owen and the school for years, with Owen passing all of his classes and feeling very comfortable with the school and its people. It was hard work for everyone involved, including Owen and his mother, who did (and does) most of the work with him at home. There were some bumps in the road, but we worked with the school to get through them.

But things changed when a new administration and new members of the school’s Board of Directors came on in 2017. NCS renamed itself an “Honors Academy,” a title with no official meaning, but which came with an “honors curriculum” and pressure to improve test scores. And the new administration and board looked to cut costs at the same time as it sought to finance expansion with new buildings (NC charter schools do not receive any building/construction funds, as do “regular” public schools).

The school’s EC students presented two problems to the school’s new paradigm. First, the test scores EC students in regular classes are counted toward the school’s overall scores, while the score of students in self-contained classes are not. Second, additional EC personnel such as on-to-one assistants increased costs.

You may see where this is going.

Since April of 2018, NCS has exhibited a pattern of behaviors and actions that leads me to conclude that the school is actively attempting get its EC students either moved into self-contained settings, or to make parents of EC students so frustrated at the school that they withdraw. Owen’s mother agrees with this conclusion, which may be expected. More importantly and more telling, former NCS EC staff who saw firsthand how the school dealt with its EC students also agree.

Owen’s mother and I filed a formal complaint with the EC Division of the NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI), the state’s “Department of Education,” alleging the school’s failure to meet its legal obligations under IDEA. You can see a document we submitted with the complaint detailing the school’s actions here. Here are some highlights, or lowlights if you will:

• At last year’s IEP planning meeting, NCS sandbagged us by bringing in representatives of another DPI agency without our knowledge, while also sandbagging the agency by lying about what they had come to the school for.
• The school has told its EC assistants that they are not allowed to speak with the parents of the EC students. This includes Owen’s one-to-one assistant, with whom we’d speak every day to find out what Owen was working on, his homework, etc.
• Owen’s EC teacher and his English teacher had a conversation about Owen’s IEP in front of a class (a confidentiality violation) and said derogatory things about Owen and his one-to-one assistant (an ethics and code of conduct violation).
• Owen’s one-to-one assistant is no longer with him when he takes tests and quizzes, a change that the school made without informing us and which violates one of the modifications in his IEP.
• Owen’s IEP also requires retesting if Owen scores below a 70 on a test or quiz. His English teacher/EC teacher did not provide retests for multiple quizzes and tests in which he scored under 70. When I asked why the retests were not given, the EC teacher said that Owen didn’t request them. He has never had to request them, because a student need not ask for modifications which are clearly spelled out in his IEP. And because he was not given these retests, he is now failing the class.
• We are aware of at least three EC students who have had similar issues with NCS not providing proper services as required by law and who have left the school.
• A former member of the NCS Board of Directors told us that members of the Board had asked if it were possible to see the IEPs of those who applied for the school’s entrance lottery. The implication was that special needs students could be taken out of the lottery.

Remember that any failure of a school to comply with an item in a student’s IEP is a violation of federal law. For NCS, these failures amount to a violation of Section 8 of its Charter by failing to “provide free and appropriate education and related services to children with special needs.” And for that, they could lose their charter, resulting in the school closing.

While Owen’s mother and I are of course most concerned about his well-being, we are also concerned about the other EC students and families who have been affected by Neuse Charter School’s blatant disregard for its legal, and moral, responsibilities. Above all, I, for one, do not want to see the school get away with what I feel amounts to mistreatment and discrimination against some of the most vulnerable children.

Update: here’s an email I sent today to the EC staff, administration, and Board of NCS, as well as to several higher-ups at DPI.

To clarify, Owen is receiving “retesting” between 11 and 20 days after the original quizzes/tests were given. This is unacceptable, and unconscionable. This is a direct result of NCS, specifically Ms. Sullivan and Bobbie Smale, refusing to follow the clear accommodations in Owen’s IEP by providing corrections/retesting for any tests/quizzes in which he received a grade under 70%. None of these retests were scheduled until after I asked Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Smale about them, and after I corrected Ms. Sullivan after she replied that it was up to Owen to request the accommodations in his IEP.

We also don’t believe that it is a coincidence that Owen has been failing far more tests/quizzes since Ms. Sullivan has been presiding over his testing rather than his One to One Assistant doing so. To be clear, we do not believe that Owen passing quizzes/tests was a result of his One to One Assistants presiding over them — to believe this, one would have to believe that four different assistants over the course of seven years have been doing something untoward. We believe that NCS, specifically Ms. Sullivan, is actively working to get Owen to fail his quizzes/tests.

Further, Ms. Sullivan has not responded to our request to be able to view all of Owen’s tests/quizzes for this year as well as the tests/quizzes given to the regular classes, so we can compare them to those given to Owen so we can verify that the modifications made comply with Owen’s IEP.

NCS is a public school, and is bound by North Carolina and federal law. NCS cannot simply ignore what it does not want to do or what is inconvenient to the school’s agenda.

Since NCS continues to violate the law, we demand the following:
* To see the records of all of Owen’s tests/quizzes presided over by his various One to One Assistants since his enrollment at NCS, versus those Ms. Sullivan has presided over, by 2/15/19.
* Written explanations from Ms. Smale justifying all of the grades under 70% that she gave Owen on classwork and homework in English I this semester, by 2/15/19.
* The scores for all tests/quizzes for which “retests” were given more than three school days after the original test/quiz to not be counted toward his final grade in the relevant class(es).
* Owen’s One to One Assistant to return to his previous duties presiding over Owen’s tests/quizzes effective 2/11/19.

If these demands are not met, we are prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to force NCS to do so. We will not allow Owen to be failed out of his classes because of the clearly illegal and intentional actions of Neuse Charter School.

Another update, 2/14/19. We were informed today that the school is changing Owen’s One-to-One Assistant. This is will be a huge adjustment for Owen to make in the middle of the school year, and is a downright devious move by NCS.

Further update on the change of Owen’s One to One (“1:1”), 2/21/19. When we were informed of who the intended 1:1 is, we objected — she (Zenaida Graham) has had at least one complaint filed against her by the parent of another EC student, for pushing him and being generally incompetent. The principal sent the following email:

I am responding to your e-mail of the 15th. As you are probably already aware, parents neither make staffing choices nor have veto power over a school’s staffing decision. Ms. Graham has been assigned to be Owen’s one-on-one assistant. I am comfortable that, as school leaders, we considered relevant information when making that choice. Your e-mail closes with a implied question of whether we would like to meet with you to discuss “other options” for Owen’s assistant. While I am always available to meet with you, or any other parent on pending matters, I see no present need to discuss “other options” with you. If circumstances change in the future, and I perceive a need to meet on this issue, I will let you know.

We were also told that the change in 1:1s is a “personnel issue.” We believe that the issue is that NCS needed to move Graham away from the student she (allegedly) assaulted, and so switched her with Owen’s last 1:1.

On 2/21/19, we met with the new 1:1, the EC Director, and the principal. Here’s how that went:

• the principal refused to let the meeting be reported;
• the new 1:1 didn’t introduce herself to us or Owen;
• the EC Director refused to let us ask the 1:1 any questions;
• the EC Director informed us that the new 1:1 has not worked at all with Owen’s most recent 1:1 on what to expect in working with Owen, and that this “transition” would happen over the “next few weeks.” This is a recipe for disaster.

Another update, 2/26/19. Short version — the new One to One Assistant effectively took Owen’s stimming device, his spinner, away from him; and although the EC Director committed to having the EC teacher update us daily via email about Owen’s day, homework, etc., they failed to do so. Here’s the EC teacher’s response to my question, and my response to them.

Good afternoon,

I apologize for getting back to you so late, however I needed to speak to Mrs. Graham before replying. During Owen’s second block, Gym, Owen had left his spinner on the stage while changing. We had a fire drill and Mrs. Graham told Owen to get his spinner and put it in his bag so he would not lose it. Nothing at all was said about not using it at school, she was simply insuring that it was not misplaced during the drill. Owen has access to his spinner anytime he needs/wants it.

I have re-shared Owen’s daily log doc. I believe that you should be able to log on to this at anytime to check updates. Please let me know if this is not the case.

Thank you,

Amy Sullivan

Exceptional Children Teacher

Neuse Charter School

Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for this response, as it proves a number of points that Andi and I made in the meeting last week about the EC staff’s inability to meet Owen’s needs.

Regarding Owen’s spinner, he told his mother that Ms. Graham said he couldn’t use it. It doesn’t matter what she was trying to say, she left the impression with Owen that he couldn’t use it. This points to poor communication skills on her part. In addition, a situation like a fire drill is one in which Owen would need his spinner more, not for it to be put away. This points to Ms. Graham’s fundamental misunderstanding of how autistics use stimming devices, and to her understanding of how to work with autistics in general (as also demonstrated by her abysmal work with Hunter Guyader. We had requested in strong terms to be able to speak and work with Ms. Graham to ensure that she had as much information and as many tools as possible to work successfully with Owen. Mr. Squibb quashed this, saying that you and he would work on the transition instead. Obviously, that work was unsuccessful. Because of this, there’s a very good chance that Owen will always think of Ms. Graham as the person who took his spinner away.

Regarding the daily log, this was not sent out yesterday, and not until 5:17 today. Mr. Squibb committed to having this to us every day at the end of the school day. Another false promise from the EC staff at NCS. Further, this was exactly the kind of situation that we said explicitly we wanted to hear about from Owen’s One to One, but since Mr. Squibb has forbidden TA’s from speaking to parents (at least that’s what he’s told us), this should have been noted in the daily log.

Since NCS has proven incapable of fulfilling its commitments, we want to have a recording device in Owen’s backpack with him during the day, so we know what’s really going on. We assume that NCS will refuse this, so we’ll be discussing this with the attorney from Gahagan Paradis whom we’re consulting with tomorrow, Ann Paradis.

Returning to older issues, we still have not been told when we can come in to see Owen’s tests/quizzes and the original tests/quizzes to ensure that all modifications in his IEP are being met. We asked for this weeks ago, and received no response. Further stonewalling from NCS.

Lastly, a reminder to Ms. Pullium that she has not yet acknowledged or responded to my public records request for all NCS emails and documents regarding Owen. We’ll be speaking with Ms. Paradis about this as well.

Sincerely,

Patrick Heavey

Update, 3/30/19. There will be much more to tell. But for now, there’s this — an email chain between two teachers at Neuse Charter School. Their names are redacted for now, but they will be made public eventually.

Update, 4/4/19. We received the letter of findings from our complaint to the NC DPI EC Division. The investigation was limited to the items below. DPI found against NCS on both items. I do disagree with their finding that failing to do the retesting accommodations was a “mistake,” however. Full document here.

Update, 4/6/19. Because of some things I heard today about the teachers from the email I posted on 3/30, I’m “un-redacting” their names from the email — Bobbie Smale and Martha Lawrence. It’s below.

Update, 4/10/19. Below is a screenshot of a Snapchat sent by the son of Amy Sullivan, the EC teacher who’s done such a bang-up job with Owen and the other EC kids this year. Lovely sentiment, isn’t it? Especially given that I’m at the school twice weekly to pick Owen up.

Another update on 4/10/19. Our lawyer finally received the records she requested from NCS on March 7. That’s 34 days for a simple request. The documents provided are, I think, incomplete, but definitely show that the English and EC teachers made almost no effort to abide by the modifications in Owen’s IEP for tests and quizzes. Not that I’m at all surprised by this.

Update, 4/12/19. The DPI EC Division letter of findings, noted above, has one corrective action listed as, “By April 22, 2019, the student’s IEP team shall meet to discuss, review, and where appropriate revise the student’s accommodations.” I emailed DPI to ask if this was meant for Owen’s current IEP, or next year’s; they said it was for the current IEP. We requested in March an IEP meeting to amend the current IEP, and the EC Director, Dustin Squibb, replied that there was not enough time left in the school year to implement any changes. So, NCS will not be in compliance with the corrective action. And NC state law says that there are “sanctions for local educational agencies that fail to implement a corrective action.” One can only hope.

Update, 4/12/19. Some good stuff, finally. One thing that NCS does well, paradoxically, is support for the school’s Special Olympians, of which Owen is one. It’s as much, or more, the students and parents who come out to support the Olympians, but it’s still good to see.

Update, 4/16/19. Somehow I missed noting the “Equity and Excellence for All Students” meeting/working group the school initiated. It’s primarily looking at bullying and “inclusion” regarding LGTB students; EC was thrown in as kind of an afterthought. The first meeting was held March 4 and was as useless as I thought it would be. Link to the audio from the meeting here. Last night was the follow up. I didn’t attend, because… well, given the email exchange noted above, I was pretty sure I couldn't have remained calm. Owen’s mother attended. The school put out a list of proposed “solutions” for each of the areas of concern. The proposals for the EC situation? Staff training. WHICH WAS WHAT DPI SAID THEY HAD TO DO AS A RESULT OF VIOLATING POLICY PER OUR COMPLAINT. The best part of the meeting, though, was everyone talked about the email between Smale and Lawrence and asked how the hell they were still employed. The only answer was, of course, “We can’t talk about personnel issues.” Nobody bought that. People are finally starting to see that the school is beyond incompetent in dealing with EC kids, it’s malicious.

And tomorrow is the annual IEP review meeting. We’re asking for a lot, since the IEPs to date have been woefully inadequate. We’ll see how the school responds.

Update, 4/19/19. Had the annual IEP meeting yesterday. All I’ll say for now is that after discussing the modifications/accommodations, the EC coordinator, Sullivan, said, “I’m just going to say this from my side, teachers don’t always want this dictated to them.” Sorry to tell you and the teachers, but the law doesn’t care. Audio below.

Update, 4/29/19. NCS has completed its “investigation” of Martha Lawrence and Bobbie Smale for their email noted above. Their “conclusions” are below. Pathetic.

Update, 4/29/19. For no particular reason — remember that the truth is an absolute defense against defamation. I will neither cease nor desist from telling the truth about what Neuse Charter School’s EC program and some of its teachers have done to Owen and other EC students. And it is the truth that Martha Lawrence of Neuse Charter School and Bobbie Smale of Neuse Charter School had the following communication via email.

Update, 4/30/19. Thanks to my neighbor, whose sons are both also special needs and who has also had issues with the EC program at a school (not NCS), for reminding me and Owen’s mother of this in a reply to a Facebook post. Doe v Withers was a case in which a teacher refused to comply with a student’s IEP modifications and was sued personally for it — and lost. Some teachers at Neuse Charter School should take note.

Update, 4/30/19. Some people won’t like what I say here, but I don’t care. In the course of a few minutes, two different people who have had major issues with how NCS treated their EC children said they wouldn’t do anything about it, in terms of contributing details of what happened for a systemic complaint to DPI. One woman said, verbatim, “I promise you, what my son went through, I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. This is a battle I choose to surrender.” These two sentences are completely incongruous. I understand this isn’t easy — truly I do — but literally all these people would have to do is write down, “My child’s IEP says X. On Ydate, NCS did Z in violation of the IEP.” No interviews, no actual involvement, nothing. I absolutely cannot wrap my mind around this mindset of being so selfish in the face of such bad behavior.

Update, 5/1/19. Last week I received a cease and desist letter from an attorney representing Martha Lawrence of Neuse Charter School— you know, the one who wrote of having Owen in her class, “they don’t pay me enough for this” and “my stomach hurts.” I contacted an attorney who specializes in defending defamation (and who knows Martha Lawrence’s attorney), and he said there’s nothing actionable in this post, and that I should feel free to post the C&D letter. So, an image of that letter is below. He also said none of the cases cited by Martha Lawrence’s attorney relate to anything meaningful. The truth won’t be suppressed, folks.

Cease and desist letter from an attorney representing Martha Lawrence of Neuse Charter School

Update, 5/20/19. Almost unbelievable, given the last update, but here it is. The school has changed attorneys, a litigation firm, not specialists in education law. We assume this is because of insurance reasons (infer what you can from that). They sent this gem to our lawyer.

The school — a government agency — told me to cease and desist from exercising my First Amendment rights, and made other false claims against me.

Here’s how I responded to my attorney:

At no point did I use the NCS complaint/grievance form to request records. All of my requests have been via email.

The additional record requests I have made are not related to this matter. I have requested all records regarding Owen and all records regarding NCS’s EC program for possible actions apart from the due process hearing and apart from Owen’s experiences.

I requested the records under chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statute, not for discovery under 26 NCAC 03 .0112.

Chapter 132 of the NCGS does not place any limits on how many records a person can request from the public agency. By saying they will not respond to pending or further requests, they are denying access to the records under the law and under § 132–9, I may “apply to the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice for an order compelling disclosure or copying, and the court shall have jurisdiction to issue such orders if the person has complied with G.S. 7A-38.3E.”

I have submitted two NCS complaints, both before [redacted]. The first was based on the original document we sent you. The second was specifically against the two teachers who wrote the offensive email, and is therefore not related to this matter.

I’ve sent you the email and link to the blog in answer to their claim of defamation. As for “harassment,” NCGS has only two possible instances that would remotely apply to the blog.

The “cyberstalking” law, § 14–196.3, which deals with electronic communications. The statute prohibits “Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing, or embarrassing any person.” The blog doesn’t meet this criteria, as it not threatening or harassing and is not directed at a person. The statute also clarifies, “This section does not apply to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others. This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including speech, protest, or assembly.” I am clearly providing lawful information to others, and the blog certainly is constitutionally-protected speech.

The stalking law, § 14–277.3A, which has the following definitions: “(1) Course of conduct. — Two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which the stalker directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, is in the presence of, or follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person’s property. (2) Harasses or harassment. — Knowing conduct, including written or printed communication or transmission, telephone, cellular, or other wireless telephonic communication, facsimile transmission, pager messages or transmissions, answering machine or voice mail messages or transmissions, and electronic mail messages or other computerized or electronic transmissions directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose.” Clearly the blog doesn’t meet these parameters.

Our attorney’s response back a couple of days later:

This is an update to the 5/13 letter from the school attorney to me. Today I responded to her. She just called me back and we agreed that she would send me the record requests you sent the school. She also said she would withdraw the cease and desist request. Please do not file any OCR complaints regarding these issues without speaking with me first. She was definitely eating crow.

The fight goes on.

Update, 6/4/19. We had the mediation session stemming from our due process petition today. We all signed an agreement that “all matters discussed during the mediation are confidential,” so I obviously can’t go into detail. I’ll just say this — it’s not over.

Update, 6/11/19. After the mediation session, our attorney filed for depositions from Neuse Charter School personnel and others who were involved in Owen’s education at NCS. This meant subpoenas. Soon after, the school’s attorney called ours to ask for a counter to their last offer, which was ridiculously low. We made the counter. The school agreed, unsurprisingly, since paying their attorney plus our attorney’s fees if the school lost the due process hearing (which they surely would have) would be far more than our offer. As of now, we’re waiting to hear back from the school’s attorney on the agreement our attorney sent. There’s a clause for non-disclosure of the terms, so, again, I can’t give details.

In other news, Owen will not be attending Neuse Charter School any longer.

More to come.

Update, 6/25.

It’s not over, folks.

More than two weeks after our attorney sent a draft settlement agreement to the school’s attorney, she responded. We were not amused, and our attorney wasn’t either. Their proposed revisions are ridiculous, particularly around this blog, about which they used the words “defamation” and “harassment.”

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED.

We’re moving forward with subpoenas for depositions of NCS staff.

Update, 8/8.

Well, NCS removed the idiotic claims of “defamation” and “harassment,” but it still took weeks for them to approve the final settlement agreement (so no depositions). And at this point, things are still not completed.

It’s not over. And even when it’s over, it won’t be over.

Update, 8/18.

Our settlement with the school was finalized a few weeks ago. We’re still waiting on the school to complete what they need to do. Then we will finally be done with Neuse Charter School.

Owen will be attending Learn With the Best, a private school, starting in a couple of weeks. This school has a great reputation, and we’re sure Owen will do well there. Of course, it’s a 40–60 minute drive in heavy rush-hour traffic in the morning, and not much less in the afternoon to pick him up. But this is what we need to do, because for years, Neuse Charter School did not meet their obligations under the law.

More to come, folks. More to come.

Update, 8/26

Well, folks, Neuse Charter School is at it again. Today, the school’s alleged EC Director, Dustin Squibb, tried to bully us and avoid the school’s legal responsibilities.

Here’s the background and sequence of events, sort of. A couple of things were in parallel, so I’ll try to tie things up a few paragraphs down.

NCS had several evaluations conducted at our request. These were to be used to put together the last IEP that NCS would do for Owen. After the reports were received (more on that below), Squibb asked us for dates we’d be available for the IEP meeting. We gave him some dates. He emailed us saying the meeting would be on 8/27. I emailed him back saying that we wanted to have a representative from Owen’s new school at the meeting, and that if that person couldn’t make 8/27, we’d have to postpone. We didn’t agree to attend the meeting.

As the narrator says in The Epic Tales of Captain Underpants, “Remember that now.”

The Speech evaluation took place on 7/24. When weeks had passed and we hadn’t gotten the report, Squibb claimed the provider said they had a “technical issue”. Apparently the issue included them having only one computer, not having backed up the report data, and not being able to find a place that could repair a computer for weeks. Nearly four weeks later, we hadn’t received the report, so I sent the following email to Squibb.

Surprise, surprise — the very next day after we requested a new evaluation, Squibb sent us the Speech evaluation report.

The psychoeducational evaluation was to have taken place on 7/30. At 1:13 p.m. the day before, Squibb notified us that the evaluation would be rescheduled, and the provider changed from the one we originally were notified it would be. It was rescheduled to Saturday, 8/3. Yes, Saturday. Even Squibb said the evaluation could “take a few hours”, and plenty of sources say this evaluation should take anywhere from four hours to being spread over several days (see the IEE request letter). It was done in under two hours.

When we got all of the evaluation reports, they were inadequate. As per our rights under the IDEA (know the law, people), we requested Independent Educational Evaluations at Public Expense. This means that NCS would pay for these evaluations. Here is our request letter, noting the inadequacies of the evaluations/reports; I purposely left out citations of the relevant law, just to see if NCS could figure it out. Per the law, NCS has two and only two options — agree to pay for the evaluations, or file a due process petition. Guess whether Squibb’s response was one of these. Go ahead, guess.

I’m assuming you guessed correctly.

My response was, essentially, “Learn the law.”

Getting back to the IEP meeting, we asked Jill at Learn With The Best whether anyone would be available to attend on 8/27. She said, as we figured, that no one would be available this week since it’s their first week of school. Next week, I’m traveling, so I’ll be unavailable. I emailed Squibb letting him know this and requesting that the IEP meeting be postponed because 1) a member of the IEP team (someone from LWTB that we wanted to be there) couldn’t attend, and 2) since the evaluations were inadequate and we had requested IEEs, we wanted to wait until these were completed so they could be included in putting together the IEP.

So… here’s the response that we received from Squibb today. I’ve redacted details about the terms of our settlement agreement (details about which he was wrong, BTW).

“That meeting” refers to the IEP meeting scheduled on 8/27.

So, let’s review.

• Dustin Squibb, the alleged Exceptional Children Director at Neuse Charter School, whose other job at the school is as its varsity basketball coach, apparently doesn’t know the laws that it is his job to know.
• We did not agree to attend the IEP meeting on 8/27, so Squibb is lying.
• We asked to postpone the IEP meeting for two reasons, with the primary reason being so we could have a representative from LWTB there. Squibb ignores this.
• Squibb says the IEP meeting “will happen” despite 1) our never having agreed to attend, and 2) our request for postponement. This is an egregious attempt at bullying us for attempting to exercise our lawful rights.
• Squibb tries to weasel out of his unlawful response to our IEE request by saying he “misspoke”.

Needless to say, we were both livid at this response (Andi saw it before I did, Gmail is having some issues with loading new emails in my pinned tab). I guess Squibb had his feelings hurt when I corrected him on his response to the IEE request.

Below are my responses, again redacting details about the terms of our settlement agreement.

I was mistaken that it was weeks until the OT report was delivered — it was the Speech report that took weeks to be delivered.

Tying everything up for the TL;DR crowd:

• The evaluations Neuse Charter School did for Owen are inadequate.
• Dustin Squibb, the EC Director of Neuse Charter School, gave a response to an IEE request that was not within the parameters of the IDEA.
• Dustin Squibb, the EC Director of Neuse Charter School, has threatened to hold an IEP meeting without us (Owen’s parents) present, even though we never agreed to attend the meeting.

We are not attending any meeting tomorrow. If NCS holds the IEP meeting tomorrow without us, it will be a clear violation of the IDEA, and I will file a complaint with DPI.

So, there’s that.

Through all of this, Owen started at his new school today, Learn With The Best, a private school serving special needs children. He was very happy with his first day.

In other news, our attorney has closed our case file, so the due process action, AKA Phase 1, is over.

Phase 2 will be starting shortly.

Update, 8/27

I’ve received a lot of Facebook messages from people who have had similar problems with Neuse Charter School’s EC program. Here are some of them.

Update, 8/29

I was reminded by Owen’s mother that Neuse Charter School did not undertake at least one of the corrective actions that it was directed to by DPI — it did not convene an IEP meeting to update Owen’s 2018–2019 IEP. As noted in the 4/12 update, NCS EC Director Dustin Squibb refused to convene implement the corrective action. Per NC § 115C-107.4, NCS should be subject to sanctions for failing to implement a corrective action. I have notified DPI that NCS did not implement the corrective action. We’ll see if they respond or, as they seem to have been doing for some time, ignore what is going on at Neuse Charter School’s EC program.

Another update, 8/29

Got the final accounting from our attorney today for the case against NCS. The school cost us $20,527.02 in attorney’s fees. Fortunately, our attorney did good work for us.

Separately, I noted in the 4/16 update that NCS started a “Equity Co-Op” group of a number of parents, teachers, and administration to discuss some of the many issues at the school, including the issues with the EC program. I attended one of these meetings (3/4); Owen’s mother attended another (4/15). It quickly became obvious that NCS had no desire to actually address the issues with their EC program, as evidenced by EC no longer being mentioned after we stopped attending the meetings and no mention of EC is the final “Equity Plan and Timeline”:

3/4 meeting notes — EC issues discussed
4/15 meeting notes — EC issues discussed
5/21 meeting notes — EC issues not discussed
Equity Plan — EC issues not mentioned

In case there’s any question that these docs are authentic:

One interesting thing from the Equity Plan — the admission that things are not going well at Neuse Charter School in a bunch of areas:

Historical distrust of the NCS systems in place to address concerns surrounding equity and safety. This historical distrust of NCS has added
trauma to families and students on our campus.

It sure as hell has, folks.

Update, 9/10

So, today we had an IEP meeting at Neuse Charter School for Owen. Yes, it’s weeks into the school year. Yes, Owen is no longer attending NCS. But those aren’t the weird part of what’s happened over the past couple of weeks.

Neuse Charter School was required to have a number of evaluations done for Owen. Among these was a Secondary Transition Assessment (SAT), an evaluation and report that informs transition services to be provided for Owen after he leaves high school. Here’s a good, if long, document on what’s involved in a proper STA (hint: it’s a lot). Most of these were completed, though we were not satisfied with the results (and have filed a request for Independent Educational Evaluations at public — that is, NCS’s — expense), but the STA was not completed, though it was supposed to be done along with the Psycho-Educational Evaluation on 8/3 (which was a hastily-rescheduled evaluation). I guess the easiest way to do this is the sequence of events:

• 8/27 — I send Dustin Squibb, Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director, an email noting that the STA was not completed. I received no reply.
• 8/30 — I send Squibb another email reminding him that the STA was not completed. I received no reply.
• 9/3 — I receive an email from Squibb: “I expect the psychologist to finalize the Secondary Transition Assessment in the next few days. I will send you a copy once I receive it.” The same day, I reply, asking: “If the assessment was done by the psychologist on the day of the psych-ed evaluation, why wasn’t the secondary transition assessment? What tools and protocols did the psychologist use in her assessment?” Guess what? I receive no reply.
• 9/5 — Another email to Squibb asking where the STA is. No reply.
• 9/8 — I send a fax (because I couldn’t find an email) to the psychologist who performed the psych-ed eval, asking her if she did in fact perform a full Secondary Transition Evaluation.
• 9/9, the day before the IEP meeting — Squibb sends us the “STA”. It’s 85 words. Eighty-five words. Eighty-five.

• 9/10 — The IEP meeting is held.

Hold onto your hats.

• Backing up a bit. The evening of 9/9, I received an email from the psychologist who allegedly performed the STA. Here is the response (I’m leaving the doctor’s name out purposefully).

• Medium doesn’t allow for indented bulleted lists, so I’ll have to make do.

1. The psychologist was not asked to do the STA until after I reminded Squibb that it hadn’t been done, on 8/27.
2. The psychologist essentially told him, “No,” as this was not his/her area of expertise (sorry, I just can’t improperly say “their”).
3. Squibb emailed the psychologist again, asking for a ““summary of preferences and interests related to work opportunities and career options” based on my report and the student interest sheet (which he attached)”. So, Squibb changed from asking for an STA to some other bullshit (technical term).
4. We had no idea what the “student interest sheet” was that Squibb sent the psychologist. Today, he/she sent us a copy. It was an interest inventory that was completed in 5/10/19. I’d link it here, but it’s password protected. Here are the screenshots.
5. The psychologist put on the STA “report”, “Owen, Mrs. Heavey, and Mrs. Sullivan completed the Transition Assessment –Student (and Parent) Interview Form.” Owen’s mother did not complete anything — as previously noted. neither of us had seen this before. The top of the first page says, “Owen Heavey with Mrs. Sullivan” (Sullivan was Owen’s “EC Teacher”).
6. On 5/10/19, we were informed via the “Daily Log” from Sullivan that an interest inventory was completed. I asked via email to Sullivan, Smith (since gone), and Squibb: “Why were we not informed in advance that Owen would be given an interest inventory today, when his IEP states it would be done on 5/17/19? Why did we not receive a copy of the interest inventory that was to be done on 3/15/19? Which interest inventory was used?” Surprise, surprise, I received no reply. Fast forward to today.
7. Other than Owen putting his name at the top of the fourth page, it’s obvious that Owen did not make the check marks or write in answers.
8. Anyone who has spent enough time with Owen would know that he would not understand many to most of the questions on this survey, and would not be able to give a valid response.
9. From 6, 7, and 8 above, we conclude that Sullivan led Owen through the survey, and not in a good way, and that the document is in no way a valid transition assessment tool/measurement.

And… just wow.

Andi, Owen’s mom, caught this. I’m just going to leave this here, and post more about the IEP meeting itself tomorrow night.

Below are images of two signatures. The top is one Owen made tonight. The bottom is from the document that the psychologist sent us (recall he/she said he/she received it from Squibb).

I’ll let you decide for yourself what you think.

Update, 9/11

I’m under the weather today, and pretty drained by more crap from Neuse Charter School (this time from Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium) (yes, there is a reason I completely type out names and titles like Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium and Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director Dustin Squibb), but there’s a lot to update you on. So, through the miracle of hyperlinking to PDFs on Google Drive, I present to you the utter shitshow that was the ridiculous attempt by Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium and Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director Dustin Squibb to bully us into accepting a crap sandwich of a sorry excuse for a Secondary Transition Assessment as something that is “sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, and provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child.”

Oh, yeah, and the IEP meeting at which Neuse Charter School violated about half of the IDEA (see the DPI EC complaint).

Because of a confidentiality clause in our settlement agreement with the school, and because I don’t want to reveal the identity of the psychologist who was unfortunate enough to get roped into producing the alleged Secondary Transition Assessment, some documents contain redactions.

Settle in, there’s a lot of reading. And gifs.

• The details of the DPI EC complaint filed against Neuse Charter School on 9/10. I handed it to Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium at the conclusion of the IEP meeting. She was not pleased.

• The alleged Secondary Transition Assessment (screenshots, since the original PDF is password-protected).
• What I found about the alleged Secondary Transition Assessment that Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director Dustin Squibb tried to pawn off on us as legitimate, including that signature (hat tip to Owen’s mother for seeing that one). I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this — I mean, if you’re going to use something meant for 3rd-6th graders for a 9th grader, at least white-out the freaking footer that says so.

C’mon, son.

• The public records request I submitted to Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium at the conclusion of the IEP meeting. She was double not pleased.

• Our IEE request.
• The attempt at a response from Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium to our IEE request.
• My response to Neuse Charter School Executive Director Susan Pullium’s attempt at a response to our IEE request, even though Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director Dustin Squibb told us at the IEP meeting that he would be responding to the IEE request. Huh.

That’s it for now.

Update, 9/20

I got responses today from some of my communications to Neuse Charter School regarding the joke that they called an IEP meeting.

Here’s the first, from Dustin Squibb, Exceptional Children Director at Neuse Charter School.

Seriously?

Let’s go through his points.

1. “We believe we had a compliant IEP team in place at the meeting on the 10th.” They did not invite a transition services provider. This is explicitly mandated by the IDEA. So, no.
2. Need to break these down.

• “ The team determined that Owen was not eligible for speech services as a related services.” Owen’s mother and I are part of the IEP team. We did not determine this. So, no.
• “What we did say is that the SLP would provide recommendations for general educators to consider. Once we receive those, we will send them to you so that you may share those thoughts with Owen’s current school.” By law, these recommendations must be included in the IEP. So, no.

3. “ We did have the requisite information from various sources (including, but not limited to, Dr. Draper [the author of the alleged “secondary transition assessment”]) for developing the transition portion of Owen’s IEP.” As shown previously, at the least the “secondary transition assessment” they provided was not even close to meeting the IDEA’s requirements for evaluations. So, no.

Squibb finishes with, “We are not going to hold another IEP team meeting.” We’ll see about that, Sparky.

Susan Pullium, Executive Director of Neuse Charter School, responded to my request for student records, for the alleged “transition assessment” document (so I didn’t have to rely on the one that Dr. Draper sent me) and copy of the “Consent for Evaluation” form that Owen’s mother completed but didn’t make a copy of before giving it to the school (always make a copy/scan of everything, folks). The “transition assessment” was the same as what was sent to me by Dr. Draper. My interest was in the consent form. Screenshot below.

Here’s a link to the document.

What is not included in this document? Consent to release Owen’s educational records to the evaluators.

Here’s a summary of what the law (IDEA and FERPA) says about the requirement for explicit consent to disseminate a student’s educational records.

Link to that document, from the U.S. Department of Education, by the way.

Neuse Charter School released Owen’s “transition assessment” — which is an educational record, since it was done by the school and not an outside provider — to Dr. Draper without consent. In the speech/language evaluation, the evaluator (the one who didn’t include any recommendations in her report) writes this:

This means that NCS gave Owen’s IEP (not the current one, since there is no current IEP because NCS seemingly can’t follow the law), an educational record, without consent to at least to this evaluator. So, guess what? Yet another DPI EC complaint coming!

Update, 9/24

Relatively short one today. I received the DPI’s response to my complaint of 9/13. I won’t post the whole letter, but the upshot is this: DPI is investigating all of my claims against NCS, and NCS has to provide a metric buttload of documents to DPI within 15 days.

The other item is an “audit” of the Neuse Charter School EC program by NCS EC Director Dustin Squibb, as posted with other documents from the September NCS Board of Directors meeting. The minutes from the board meeting notes that Squibb wasn’t present, and that he reported there are approximately 10 EC students at NCS. This makes me heartsick, knowing what the school has done to many other EC students.

The “audit” document posted consists of 7 slides, including a title slide and a summary slide. So all of the issues that the Neuse Charter School EC program has were boiled down to 5 slides. Below are screenshots of the whole “audit”.

A couple of thoughts, assuming this is all that the “audit” is.

• This is pathetic. Later in the board meeting minutes, details of a contract for an audit of the school’s finances are included. An audit is a detailed inspection of the program being examined, and there is no detail here as to why Squibb concluded the issues with the EC program are only “inconsistent IEP development process” and “inefficient student identification process [this is regarding the NC Child Find law]”.
• Here’s another “area for continued improvement” — LEARN THE DAMN EC LAW.

Update, 10/23.

No movement on the actual issues yet — decision from DPI on my latest complaints won’t come for a few weeks.

However, some news, of sorts. I’ve been in communication with a reporter, Steve Reed, from The Johnstonian, a (very) small local paper, about the issues with Neuse Charter School. The communication started in February, and picked up again in August and September as more things started happening. I sent him info on the new complaints, the botched IEP meeting, etc. He had contacted Susan Pullium, Executive Director of Neuse Charter School, regarding these issues, with no response from her.

Then the news came out that Pullium was resigning, effective January 1. Scuttlebutt is that she was forced out because of poor test scores, a fetid atmosphere (“historical distrust of NCS has added trauma to families and students”), etc. My complaints and due process actions couldn’t have helped.

I told the reporter about Pullium. Apparently this piqued his interest. He contacted Pullium for comment about the school’s state report card scores and the DPI complaints. She declined comment on these. Here’s what she replied to Reed about commenting on Owen’s situation. Reed forwarded it to me.

Here’s my response to Reed.

I received no response, or any further communication from Reed.

Yesterday, I saw this in my Google News local feed, though it was from The Johnstonian (The Wilson Times is one of a number of newspapers in the same group as The Johnstonian).

Here’s a link to the article. Here, for reasons that will become obvious in a bit, is a link to a PDF of the article as of earlier today.

I have a number of issues with the article, starting with the fact that THE REPORTER GOT MY NAME WRONG. Seriously, I’ve emailed the guy dozens of times with my name in the sign-off, all of the documents have my name on it, AND HE CALLS ME PAUL HEAVEY.

Below is what I sent to him in response to what I see as a botched piece of journalism, minus one point regarding confidentiality.

I read the story published in the Johnstonian, based on information I had given you about Neuse Charter School. The story contains a number of errors and omissions:
* My name is Patrick Heavey, not Paul Heavey. My name was on every email I sent you and all documentation I sent you.
* You misspelled Susan Pullium’s last name repeatedly in the article, despite my noting her name in multiple emails and your having correspondence with her.
* I informed you that Pullium was resigning, and informed you about the school’s poor NC report card. This is not noted in the article.
* You note correctly that I filed complaints with DPI that are being investigated, but failed to note that DPI has already found that Neuse Charter School committed violations of policy based on complaints I filed last year.
* You printed Ms. Pullium’s statement about asking me for permission to speak about Owen, including her accusation that if I did not I am “not interested in having both sides heard,” but did not print any of my response to you that Pullium did not need my permission to discuss the issues at hand or otherwise note that such permission wasn’t needed. This leaves readers with the false impression that I in fact don’t want the school’s side heard.
* I noted in communication with you that there is information I can’t share regarding the outcome of the issues with NCS because of a confidentiality clause. I would think journalistic prudence would dictate that you not put mention of this in the article.
* The article fails to mention the much larger issues at NCS, including the problems other EC students have had with the school and that the school itself noted: “Historical distrust of the NCS systems in place to address concerns surrounding equity and safety. This historical distrust of NCS has added trauma to families and students on our campus.”

I request immediate corrections in the errors in the story, proper context added regarding Pullium’s refusal to discuss the school’s issues, and removal of the mention of the confidentiality issue.

I copied Reed’s editor. Reed responded to this by saying… he would forward this to his editor. Whatever.

I won’t hold my breath for corrections. I’ll let you know if they happen.

Update, 11/14.

It’s finally here, folks. The DPI final report on my EC complaints has arrived! Christmas in November!

OK, not quite. But Neuse Charter School lost big time on this one.

Because much of the report discusses our settlement agreement with the school, I may not wind up publishing the entire document here. Here are the highlights, quoting where possible, emphasis mine, ellipses indicate mention of details of the settlement agreement are redacted.

• Regarding the joke of a secondary transition assessment — “NCS was on notice that the provider they had hired to conduct the Secondary Transition Assessment was not able to produce said assessment(s). Once NCS was notified a Secondary Transition Assessment was not conducted, NCS failed to acknowledge their error and did not take steps to secure the required assessment(s). On the contrary, NCS proceeded with holding the IEP Team meeting and referencing the one-page summary as a Transition Assessment. NCS failed to meet their obligation… to provide a Secondary Transition Assessment.”
• Almost overlooked these at first, from the Findings of Fact regarding the transition assessment: “On July 10,2019, NCS’ exchanged emails with a provider regarding conducting a comprehensive psychological evaluation for the student. The provider indicated they would be available to conduct the evaluation after August 2, 2019…. On July 22, 2019, in reference to Fact One above, the provider notified NCS she was not able to proceed with the evaluation. She indicated specific areas of the requested assessment were outside her area of competence. [No details were provided, as to which areas were at issue]. On July 31, 2019, NCS notified the parents that the original provider for the psychological evaluation was unavailable, however, a new provider has been secured.” So not only was the second provider not qualified to perform the transition assessment, the first provider wasn’t qualified either, and she withdrew from doing the assessment.
• Related: “it is reasonable to have expected NCS to follow the Policies regarding evaluation procedures. The Policies require assessments and other evaluation materials to be administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; … be tailored to assess specific areas of educational need; and … provide relevant information that directly assists
  persons in determining the educational needs of the child. As discussed in Issue One, Analysis and Conclusion, NCS failed to conduct age-appropriate assessments in all areas of postsecondary transition. Further, the evidence shows the evaluator employed by NCS to conduct a Secondary Transition Assessment was not competent to conduct such an assessment. In fact, the evaluator acknowledged she had never heard of said assessment and clarified the one-page summary of the student’s interests that she prepared, was not intended to be a transition assessment. Finally, since the evaluator was not trained or knowledgeable of the requirements for Secondary Transition Assessments, it would be inconsistent with the Policies to consider the documentation she provided to meet NCS’ obligation to conduct said assessment. DPI has determined that NCS violated the Policies requiring comprehensive evaluations, specifically related to the Secondary Transition Assessment.”
• Regarding not inviting a transition services provider to the IEP meeting: “Complainant alleged NCS failed to follow the IDEA regarding transition services. Specifically, NCS did not invite any provider of transition services to the IEP meeting held on September 10, 2019. … Since NCS failed to
  conduct a Secondary Transition Assessment, there were no transition assessments to review. However, the evidence shows the Team intended to meet on September 10,2019, in part, to discuss Transition. Further, the Team was aware the student turned 16 years old a few months prior to the
  IEP meeting date, therefore, according to the Policies, the IEP was required to include Transition Activities. Thus, NCS should have noticed the parents and the student of this purpose in the Invitation to Conference. Additionally, four of the Transition Services identified on the student’s IEP designated Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) as the agency responsible for the service. Consistent with the Policies, since VR was going to be the agency at least partially responsible for providing Transition Services, NCS should have, with the consent of the parents, invited a representative from VR to attend the student’s IEP meeting. DPI has determined that NCS is in violation of the Policies regarding IEP Team participants, specifically Transition Services Participants.”
• Regarding the failure to include transition services on the Invitation to Conference: “Complainant alleges, NCS failed to provide the parents with proper notice of the purpose of the IEP meeting scheduled for September 10, 2019. As discussed above, in Issue Four, Analysis and Conclusion, the Invitation to Conference dated August 27,2019, did not identify Transition as one of the purposes for the IEP meeting scheduled for September 10, 2019. The purpose of the Invitation to Conference is to provide adequate notice for the parents and student to prepare for upcoming discussions and the important decisions that will be made at the IEP meeting. Since the student is 16, the lEP would have had to include Transition Activities. Therefore, proper notice would have included, that a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals and transition services for the student. IEP was required to include Transition
  Activities. The Invitation to Conference did not contain sufficient notice, as required by the Policies. [Paragraph deleted, see below re: draft IEP, as well as references to the settlement agreement]…. Therefore, NCS’ Invitation to Conference was inconsistent with the Policies, because it failed to provide sufficient notice to the parents and student, that one of the purposes of the upcoming IEP meeting would include discussions and decisions regarding postsecondary Transition Services. DPI has determined that NCS is in violation of the Policies regarding Parent Participation.”
• Regarding NCS providing the draft IEP not being provided to us prior to the IEP meeting: “Complainant also alleges NCS prepared a draft IEP in advance of the IEP meeting, however, failed to provide the parents with a copy of the draft prior to the meeting held on September 10, 2019. The evidence shows NCS had prepared a draft IEP in advance to the IEP meeting, however, the IEP meeting notes include NCS identifying the document as a draft and stating each area of the IEP will be reviewed, discussed, and decided by the IEP Team. Further, information provided by the parents to NCS, included federal guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which was documented within the parent’s concerns section of the IEP, which states, if LEAs prepare draft IEPs, they are encouraged to provide same to parents in advance of the IEP meeting. This guidance should be interpreted as best practices; however, it is not a mandate for LEAs to be required to provide draft lEPs to parents.” DPI concluded that NCS was not required to provide the draft IEP per NC DPI policies, but stated that it is best practice. So NCS did not follow best practices regarding the IEP process. Shocking.

There were several areas of the complaint for which DPI did not find against the school.

• The above-mentioned IEP draft issue.
• “ DPI has determined NCS was not in violation of the Policies regarding when IEPs should be in effect.” This is related to when or if Owen was or was not “dis-enrolled” from NCS. This has a lot to do with the settlement agreement, so I can’t go into it. I disagree with DPI’s decision on this.
• “DPI has determined that NCS is not in violation of the Policies regarding IEEs.” Again, much of this hinges on the settlement agreement, can’t comment in detail, but on this I will contact DPI and may submit a new complaint based on the 3-year time period for reevaluations.

Summary of the corrective actions:

• By 11/22/19, the EC teacher and EC administrator must review specific “resources for examples of appropriate postsecondary transition assessments.” Yawn.
• The meat:

By December 9, 2019, NCS’ EC teacher shall:

Review existing data for the student, relevant to postsecondary transition. The review should include, but not be limited to, the Interests and Skills Inventories; and Transition Inventory, both dated May 10, 2019; the Student and Parent forms regarding the student’s interests (referred to in the September 10, 2019, IEP Secondary Transition Component); and the Working Opportunities and Career Options summary, prepared by a psychologist on behalf of NCS in August of 2019.

Identify what additional information is needed to inform the process, such as, data regarding the student’s strengths, preferences and interests, relevant to the student’s postsecondary interests and goals.

Obtain written consent from the parents for all assessments prior to conducting said assessments.

Obtain written consent from the parents and the private school, for the EC teacher to conduct any observations that may be required, depending on the assessment, in the school setting.

By March 9, 2020, NCS’ EC teacher shall:

Conduct at least one informal and one formal, age-appropriate transition assessment, related to each of the following areas: training, education, employment, and independent living skills.

The assessments shall be conducted as soon as practicable and be completed no later than March 9, 2020.

Upon completion of each assessment, NCS shall document the results in a written report, to be provided to the parents. The report shall identify the name of the evaluator/teacher, the date of the assessment, name of the assessment, the source of the assessment, and any additional information the EC teacher determines is necessary to inform the parents of the results.

As noted above, DPI’s corrective action regarding the transition assessment states that NCS must “Review existing data … includ[ing], but not be limited to, the Interests and Skills Inventories; and Transition Inventory, both dated May 10, 2019; the Student and Parent forms regarding the student’s interests (referred to in the September 10, 2019, IEP Secondary Transition Component)…. Here’s the thing, or things. Neither Owen’s mother nor I completed a “Parent form regarding the student’s interests.” And as noted well above, we are convinced that Owen did not complete these forms either. I will be contacting DPI on these issues, to be sure.

The NCS “EC teacher”, Amy Sullivan, is not remotely qualified to perform a transition assessment — recall that this is the person who said of NCS teachers having to adhere to IEP modifications, “I’m just going to say this from my side, teachers don’t always want this dictated to them.”

Also not addressed by this “final report” is the fact that no valid IEP was completed because of the lack of secondary transition planning. And the IEE issue is still open as far as I’m concerned.

So, still, this ain’t over.

Oh, and I almost forgot… I’ll just leave these here.

From the DPI report: “NCS was on notice that the provider they had hired to conduct the Secondary Transition Assessment was not able to produce said assessment(s). Once NCS was notified a Secondary Transition Assessment was not conducted, NCS failed to acknowledge their error and did not take steps to secure the required assessment(s). On the contrary, NCS proceeded with holding the IEP Team meeting and referencing the one-page summary as a Transition Assessment. NCS failed to meet their obligation… to provide a Secondary Transition Assessment.”

From Procedures and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA for Public School Children with Disabilities: “At least in cases of intentional conduct, or conduct that meets gross misjudgment, bad faith, or deliberate indifference standards, compensatory damages are available for violations of section 504 and the ADA.”

Update, 1/30/20

First update of the new year, mostly because Neuse Charter School has still not produced all of the communications from the public records request I made nearly five months ago, despite my attorney having been in touch with the school’s attorney since the beginning of November. Well, Neuse Charter School has a new Interim Executive Director, John Betterton. He should expect a visit from a process server quite soon.

And a reminder to Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton and the school’s attorney: personal emails, texts, and other communications that have to do in whole or in part “in connection with the transaction of public business” (that is, discussing school business or students) are public records and must by law be produced on request. The judge who (foolishly) approved the “Silent Sam” settlement found that out, as reported by WBTV. The author of the article seemingly expressed shock that it took a month for the judge to fulfill the public records request. Heck, @Nickochsnerwbtv, that’s nothing compared to five months.

Update, 2/7/20.

Short note on my last update above. I already knew that NCS, and likely its attorney in our legal actions against it (hi, Nikki!), read any updates on this blog. This was confirmed last Friday, 1/31. My attorney in the public records matter against the school was literally on his way into court to file suit against the school for not produce the records I requested — five months after the initial request, as a reminder — when he got a call from the school’s attorney. Apparently my mention of “process server” got her attention, and she finally had a semi-productive conversation with my attorney. I agreed to give them two more weeks to produce the requested records, including relevant personal emails, texts, IMs, written notes, and any other records about Owen and the school’s EC program.

Now, onto today’s new and infuriating stuff.

Owen is scheduled to start the assessments that Neuse Charter School previously screwed up next Monday morning, at 8:30 a.m, at his current school, Learn With The Best. So when does Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb decide to respond to my email from 1/30 telling him we want to video the assessment? That’s right — 2:30 p.m. the Friday before. And on top of that, Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb said that while he is OK with having an observer from LWTB in the room during the assessment, he doesn’t want the observer “interfering” with the assessment. Oh, and he wants the assessment held in a “standard 20-student classroom”, but not a conference room. See for yourself.

My response, on which I cc’d Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb’s boss, Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton.

The reply from Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb is below. The chickensh*t removed his boss, Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton, from his reply.

Note when he sent his reply — 4:45 p.m. On the Friday before the assessment scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Monday morning. Yes, folks, Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb left an entire 15 minutes for DPI to give “guidance” on this. Oh, yeah, the chickensh*t also left off his boss, Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton, on this reply.

My reply is below. Since, again, chickensh*t Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb left his boss Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton off his last reply, I re-included him.

I fully expect that Monday morning, whoever shows up from NCS to conduct the assessment will use chickensh*t Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb’s demands as a pretext to not conduct the assessment. And, as I noted in my reply, I will immediately submit a complaint to the DPI EC Division. They know me well, at this point, thought they’ve done little to stop Neuse Charter School from trampling on the law and the rights of EC students.

That last line about court? Not a threat, a reality.

Mark H.

M.M.

Update, 2/11/20

More jackassery from Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb to report.

As noted in the last update, NCS was supposed to conduct the first part of Owen’s transition assessment that they effed up this summer on Monday, 2/10, at 8:30 a.m. I brought Owen into school early, and drove home. His mother received this text from the Jill, the Director at Owen’s school, with whom Squibb had (belatedly) made arrangements for the assessment. Owen’s mother received the following text from Jill.

A short time later, Jill received the following email from Squibb.

Note that Squibb sent this a half-hour after the assessment was supposed to have started, and that he did not inform me or Owen’s mother that he was unilaterally canceling the assessment.

I was, of course, pissed.

While Squibb said DPI had indicated that NCS not proceed with the assessment, I didn’t believe him, given his past history of lying about Owen’s evaluations. So I called the person at the DPI EC Division who has been handling our complaints against NCS. She told me that no one from DPI had indicated that NCS not proceed with the assessment, and she forwarded me the email she sent to Squibb and the school’s attorney.

Things to note on this email:

• It was sent to Squibb and NCS’s attorney on Saturday, 2/8. Squibb didn’t bother to notify us or Owen’s school until after they didn’t show up for the assessment.
• The email from DPI clearly states, “At this time, the parent has the option to move forward with the evaluation under the conditions offered by NCS” — that is, no video but an observer from Owen’s school was allowed.
• DPI does not say that our request to have the assessment videoed was in violation of any policy, only that they would not require that NCS honor the request.

Bottom line — Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb lied, again.

My reply to lying chickensh*it Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb is below.

We withdrew the request for video, so the assessments can go forward as DPI said, right? Right?

Nope.

Again, chickensh*it Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb didn’t copy his boss, Neuse Charter School Interim Executive Director John Betterton, who apparently allows and abets Squibb’s lying. Because this is yet another lie from lying chickensh*it Neuse Charter School EC Director Dustin Squibb.

NCS just can’t help itself. It keeps adding bad faith actions to the pile it’s already committed.

Update, 3/14/20

A short one for now, given everything that’s going on. As stated, I made a public records request to Neuse Charter School on 9/10/19. That’s six months ago, and I still haven’t received nearly all the records that meet my request. Under no definition is this “as promptly as possible” as prescribed in North Carolina law.

I’m still raising funds for help with legal fees for a suit against the school to make them produce all records per my request.

I’m certain that NCS has not produced all of the records I have requested — any communications about Owen and the NCS EC program, including internal school emails and personal emails and texts. I believe, but can’t prove, that NCS is purposely withholding some communications because they’re damaging to the school. Until now, I hadn’t had any solid proof that there were communications within the parameters of my records request that the school hadn’t produced.

Now I do.

I added the highlighting. Neuse Charter School Exceptional Children Director Dustin Squibb states in the email screenshotted above that he sent an email the previous week regarding “communications to parents”. Since Squibb is the EC Director, this email would have been about EC students; based on our experiences during this timeframe, I believe this email was Squibb instructing any NCS teachers or assistants (including his 1:1 assistant )working with Owen that any communications had to be made to us as his parents through Amy Sullivan (and I believe that Sullivan discussed and cleared any communications with us with Squibb).

The email that Squibb describes was not included in any of the many batches of emails I got from NCS through their lawyer. Clearly this email would qualify as one to be produced under the parameters of my records request. So, either NCS and their lawyer is incompetent in producing the communications I requested, or they are intentionally withholding communications.

We’ll leave it at that for now.

Tomorrow, I will probably post another update further demonstrating that Neuse Charter School teacher Bobbie Smale should not be allowed to continue teaching.