Chicago Flunks when it Comes to Special Ed

October 1, 2009

For two years, Sandra Bollacker told schoo l officials something was wrong with her son. Unlike his peers, he struggled to write and could barely hold a pencil.

It was only after an outside physician diagnosed Eric Bollacker with autism that Chicago Public Schools acknowledged his disorder in a special education plan. But the boy’s mother, like many Chicago parents with special needs children, believes the plan is woefully insufficient. Eric, 10, is now in fourth grade and still struggles to read.

"During the meeting, what they were saying sounded like it might hit the mark," Bollacker said of the Individualized Education Plan meeting she had with school officials last October. "But it’s not. It’s just so clearly not."

A recent state report shows that Bollacker’s experience is far from unique: 40 percent of the 96 schools still scrutinized by the state were not properly implementing these crucial special education plans.

That’s just one of 11 findings in the Illinois State Board of Education report, which excoriates the district for its continued failure to comply with federal disability laws. The findings are part of a 17-year-old federal case in which the district was accused of illegally segregating special education students. The settlement of the Corey H. lawsuit, named after one of the young plaintiffs, requires routine monitoring of the district’s special education program.

The most blistering finding also seems to be the most basic: About half the schools reviewed failed to give enough services to kids with disabilities, stifling their ability to make appropriate progress from year to year.

"What it shows is that they are not capable, even with a state agency that isn’t super tough, to deliver the services to support those kids," said Rod Estvan, a former court monitor in the federal case and education coordinator at Access Living, a disability rights organization. "The CPS is just resisting putting the kind of resources in to solve these problems."

The school district was supposed to come up with a plan to address the concerns this month, but instead is challenging the report. Administrators argue there are only six areas that need more work, and blame the state’s findings on flawed methodology.

The district also said the measurement for success keeps changing, making it harder for schools to exit the monitoring process.

"When the goal post moves, then we feel like we have further to go," said Patrick Rocks, the district’s general counsel. "That has been a recurrent theme throughout this case."

The state board refused to comment on any aspect of its findings. In Eric Bollacker’s case, district officials said his plan is up for an annual review next month.

"(Individualized Education Plans) are never promises of progress," said Luis Rodriguez, the district’s deputy specialized services officer. "Sometimes students progress at different levels for one reason or another. A parent can address those concerns to the school."

Eric’s mother said she has addressed her concerns with school staff repeatedly, but nothing has changed. "It seems like they just push it off, push it off."

Though the latest state report is largely critical, it also highlights some areas in which the district has been successful in the last several years, such as ensuring that staff understand key pieces of the law and properly assess special needs students. The report also stated that schools are doing a better job of integrating kids with disabilities into extracurricular activities. The district will spend about $850 million this year on its roughly 45,000 special education students.

Other problems have been harder to fix.

The report found that the individualized plans, intended to address a student’s specific needs, repeatedly used boilerplate language to describe different students.

At one high school, staff did not know how to properly assist special needs students, and the students’ education plans offered no direction. Five out of seven workers at the school admitted students were not getting enough help to succeed.

For years, Cynthia Eskridge has watched her son struggle with the most basic subjects. At night, she often sits with Johneal, 15, patiently reviewing a list of three-, four- and five-letter words. He can recognize some, but struggles with "would" and "could," "more" and "what," even "two" and "she."

Johneal is a special needs sophomore at Fenger High School.

"There’s no way he should be passing these classes if he can’t do the work," said Eskridge, who believes her son’s individualized plan has left him languishing. "I don’t know how to teach him. I don’t know how to get him to learn."

After six years of special education, Johneal’s IQ actually dropped into the intellectually deficient range, according to a 2005 CPS psychological evaluation.

Since then, he has not been given another IQ test to gauge his progress. Rodriguez said the IQ test is only a part of a student’s evaluation.

"I can’t understand how they can say he’s getting an education," she said. "He’s in an algebra class now, but he can’t even do simple math."

A 2008 psychological evaluation found the boy reading at a seventh-grade level and spelling at a sixth-grade level, but his individualized plan that year said, "Johneal has very low reading ability."

Asked about the discrepancies, Rodriguez said it "would be more appropriate for this IEP to have a little more detail on his current level of ability."

Johneal’s situation is far from what the Corey H. suit hoped to accomplish.

Both the district and the state were sued in 1992 — the district accused of illegally segregating students with disabilities and the state for its failure to enforce the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The district eventually settled. The state board went to court and a judge blasted it for a lack of oversight. The state, too, entered into an agreement.

The agreements boil down to this: Chicago Public Schools would be monitored until the district can prove it is providing proper services to children with disabilities.

The case of Jahtay Ewing-Brown illustrates problems the district still faces.

She entered the district’s special education universe in first grade. Nearly a decade later, in her junior year of high school, a distric t evaluation found her reading at between a third- and fifth-grade level.

Still, Kenwood Academy High School planned to have her graduate last year.

"I don’t want to go into college not knowing things," said Jahtay, 18. "I want to be able to do things on my own, independently — pay bills, fill out job applications."

She suffers from a learning disability that is exacerbated by a seizure disorder. During her senior year, the school removed her aide. Her mother, Joslyn Ewing, said she was not notified. By law, a parent must be notified of any changes to an individualized plan.

Eventually, after more fighting, the school promised to replace the aide. And they did — with a security guard at the school.

"I couldn’t believe it," Ewing said.

When the Tribune asked about this, the head of the district’s special education office, Deborah Duskey, said there is no documentation confirming that Jahtay suffers from seizures. As such, Duskey said, the school did not need to provide a highly qualified aide.

But a review of the girl’s file, provided by her attorney, found seizures mentioned on numerous district-drafted education plans.

A 2005 internal district document said, "Health records indicate that Jahtay is under medical supervision for a seizure disorder."

The district eventually switched back to a more professional aide. The Ewings have filed a complaint against the district asking that Jahtay be allowed to continue school for a few more years to catch up.

But she won’t go back to Kenwood — there’s been too much enmity built between the school and the family.

"They just pushed Jahtay through. They put on paper whatever they needed to get her to graduate," her mother said. "There’s a lot of Jahtays out there, a lot of kids out there that are not being given a chance."