The primary goal of special education advocacy at Disability Rights California is to ensure that students with disabilities receive an education designed to meet their unique needs and educational opportunities that enrich them academically and socially. These three cases highlight DRC’s efforts.

Chanda Smith v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Chanda Smith was a sophomore at Manual Arts Senior High School in 1993. This wasn’t Chanda’s first time studying the curriculum -- she did not pass the 10th grade the previous year.  She had a learning disability that went unrecognized by school staff.

School staff said Chanda did not try hard enough in her classes, but the school district failed to evaluate Chanda’s eligibility for special education services for more than two years.

Chanda’s mother knew her daughter wasn’t receiving the supports and services she needed to succeed in the classroom. After several failed attempts to get help from the school district, Chanda’s mother sought legal help. The law firm Newman Aaronson and Vanaman along with the ACLU of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit challenging the district’s failure to follow federal special education laws.

At the same time, Disability Rights California was representing a group of parents whose children with significant disabilities were denied the opportunity to attend general education classes at their neighborhood schools.

During the time the case was filed, DRC Executive Director Catherine Blakemore was quoted as saying, “Now is not the time to abandon the progress that has been made and undo the agreement. The plans developed thus far represent steady, hard, collaborative work among the groups involved in solving the problems that special education students have historically encountered in Los Angeles Unified School District.”

The litigation resulted in an on-going consent decree governing special education services in the largest school district in California. The consent decree is the blueprint for creating and implementing a comprehensive system that provides special education supports and services to 80,000 students with disabilities. The consent decree requires the district to meet specific outcome measures. As a result of the litigation, the district has increased graduation rates; reduced the use of expulsions from school; increased the number of students who have the option of attending their neighborhood school with appropriate services and supports; and developed and begun to implement to increase architectural access at schools. 

DRC continues to monitor the district’s compliance with the consent decree. Blakemore and other staff meet monthly with the Independent Monitor about compliance. 

Separate school offers inferior education

Deborah was a 6th grade student at Focus Point Academy in Pasadena when Disability Rights California in 2016 learned of her school situation. Although, Deborah had strong math skills and was a leader in her classes, she was transferred to Focus Point due to behaviors related to trauma she experienced because of her mother’s death. The district didn’t provide Deborah with school-based behavioral services when she was in her neighborhood schools. Moreover, once Deborah was moved to Focus Point, she made virtually no academic progress.

DRC filed a class action against the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) for Deborah and students like her who were denied behavioral and mental health services in neighborhood schools and sent to a segregated school site that offered inferior education. These alternate schools also used dangerous physical restraints, forced isolation, repeated arrests, and suspensions for minor offenses. This unlawful segregation and inferior education violates the plaintiffs’ right to equal educational opportunities guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“PUSD students at Focus Point have as much to offer a student body as the students on regular campuses,” said Candis Bowles, managing attorney with DRC. “They are bright and engaging students who have a desire to learn and develop skills but no real opportunity at Focus Point.”  

The lawsuit seeks school-based behavioral services and supports and the opportunity to be educated in schools alongside students without disabilities. The litigation is currently stayed so that the parties can discuss a settlement that provides adequate relief to the class.  

System wide violations

Timothy was a nine-year-old boy in the third grade with a developmental disability. But in the first seven weeks of the school year, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) did not implement his individual education plan (IEP) from the previous school year. The district did not provide Timothy with agreed upon services, including behavior support services, individual speech therapy, or a one-to-one aide in his classroom. 

Timothy was one of 10 plaintiffs in a compliance complaint that Disability Rights California filed with the California Department of Education (CDE) on behalf of all students in special education programs. The complaint alleged that OUSD’s policies and practices resulted in system-wide violations of the rights of students with disabilities under federal law. The CDE found OUSD out of compliance and ordered corrective action.

In 2015, DRC filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging that the state failed to monitor and correct systemic problems with OUSD’s special education program. Although, the CDE found Oakland violated federal and state special education laws, it ordered the same routine and ineffective corrective actions it had repeatedly required for the past 10 years.

In 2017, the Alameda Superior Court ruled the CDE must do more to correct longstanding problems with OUSD’s special education program.

“The state has a duty to make sure school districts comply with federal and state education laws,” said Suge Lee, an attorney with DRC who represented the students. “When it failed to do so, California let down its special education students.”

The Superior Court agreed that CDE was wrong to “require the same remedy over and over and expect a different result the next time.” It ordered the state to ensure its actions are “reasonably calculated to be effective in light of the prior ineffectiveness of similar previously ordered corrective actions” to improve Oakland’s special education problems.