Blackman/Jones Case 
Joint Agreement between plaintiffs and the District of Columbia 
December 10, 2007

DCPSWatch Home

Major Areas
DC Public Schools
Mayoral Takeover
Special Education

State Education Agency
State Education Office
Vouchers
WTU
Wilson S.H.S.

Calendars
Board of Education
School Year

Columns
Elizabeth Davis
Ron Drake
Erich Martel
Nathan Saunders

Directories
Schools

Letters

Links

Organizations
DC Education Compact
Parents United
Proposition 100%

Press

Search

DCWatch Home

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIKEISHA BLACKMAN, et al. Plaintiffs
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. Defendants

Civil Action No. 97-1629 (PLF)
Consolidated with
Civil Action No. 97-2402 (PLF)

JOINT NOTICE OF FILING

The parties hereby file with the Court the attached “Agreement of Parties to Blackman/Jones Case.”

Respectfully submitted, 

For Plaintiffs:
/s/_Ira A. Burnim Ira A. Burnim, Bar No. 406154
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 
1101 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 1212 
Washington, DC 20005 
Phone: (202) 467-5730 x129

For Defendants:
LINDA SINGER
Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE 
Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
   /s/ Ellen_A. Efros ELLEN A. EFROS [#250746] Chief, Equity Section I
/s/ Cary D. Pollak CARY D. POLLAK [#055400] Senior Assistant Attorney General
441 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South 
Washington, D.C. 20001 
(202) 724-6604 (202) 727-0431 (fax) cary.pollak@dc.gov

AGREEMENT OF PARTIES TO BLACKMAN/JONES CASE 

Nature of the Agreement

1. This agreement grows out of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process initiated by plaintiffs on July 6, 2007.

2. The parties anticipate that throughout the coming months, they will continue to work together, as they did during the ADR process, to identify new issues, as well as strategies and steps to address these issues.

3. This agreement does not affect the parties’ rights and obligations under the Consent Decree entered on August 24, 2006 (hereinafter Decree).

4. This agreement is not enforceable. However, it is the parties’ intent that the agreement be implemented. The Mayor’s Office has made a commitment that the District will abide by this agreement. Plaintiffs have forgone seeking judicial relief at this time because of this commitment.

5. The parties have designated four individuals to work together to ensure that needed actions are taken to implement this agreement: Tameria Lewis, OSSE, Richard Nyankori, DCPS, Heather McCabe, Office of the CFO, and Ira Burnim, plaintiffs’ counsel.

6. Defendants understand that plaintiffs may, at any time and in their sole discretion, seek judicial relief for alleged non-compliance with the Decree.

7. The parties agree that plaintiffs, before seeking judicial relief, will: (a) give 30 days advance notice to defendants of their intent and the basis for the relief sought, and (b) thereafter meet and confer with defendants to attempt to resolve the matter. If, within 30 days (or a longer period as agreed by the parties), the parties cannot resolve the matter, plaintiffs may proceed in court. Defendants will not require plaintiffs to go through the ADR process in the Decree before seeking judicial relief. If the Court believes that an order is required to effectuate this paragraph, the parties will submit a proposed order for the Court.

8. The parties have not asked the Monitor or Evaluation Team to specifically monitor implementation of this agreement. However, the parties recognize that implementation of this agreement will affect matters being examined by the Monitor and Evaluation Team. The parties recognize that the Monitor and Evaluation Team may seek information regarding, and report on implementation of, actions taken pursuant to this agreement.

Reducing the Initial and Subsequent Blacklog

9. Each provision of this agreement is designed to reduce the initial backlog (overdue HODs and SAs issued before 3/1/06) and the subsequent backlog (overdue HODs and SAs issued on or after 3/1/06), either directly or by reducing the number of HODs and SAs that are generated by defendants’ failure to meet IDEA obligations.

10. By January 1, 2008, the parties will agree on a “Backlog Reduction Plan.” The plan will consider: the role of case managers in reducing backlogs; a role for Rebecca Klemm and her staff in reducing backlogs; changing the job descriptions of the staff currently working directly on reducing backlogs (e.g., disposition specialists, placement specialists); and redeploying positions created and/or staff hired under paragraph 51 of the Decree. The parties will consult with Special Master Elise Baach and Petties counsel concerning the plan.

11. The agreed Backlog Reduction Plan will specifically identify each staff person working directly on reducing backlogs, the job they perform, how the job will change (if at all) under the plan, and a schedule for any job changes.

12. By February 1, 2008, the parties will determine whether an exemption from the District’s personnel system is needed to effectuate the Backlog Reduction Plan (e.g., in order to timely change job descriptions, transfer staff devoted to reducing backlogs to other positions, and/or hire staff in positions devoted to directly reducing backlogs)¹. If so, the parties will immediately seek the Court’s approval of an order effectuating the exemption.

13. The agreed Backlog Reduction Plan will identify whether and how the 70 FTE positions referenced in paragraph 51 of the Decree were created and filled.

14. By January 15, 2008, defendants will report in writing to the Monitor providing a full accounting of their compliance with paragraph 51 of the Decree.

Charter Schools

15. By December 14, 2007, defendants will file with the Court a statement accepting legal responsibility for ensuring timely hearings and timely implementation of HODs and SAs for charter school students. The parties agree that OSSE, as the District’s designated SEA for IDEA purposes, has ultimate legal responsibility under both federal and District law for ensuring timely hearings and timely implementation of HODs and SAs. The statement filed with the Court under this provision will address the issue regarding jurisdiction over charter schools raised in the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master regarding D.H. filed with the Court on July 31, 2007.

16. Other provisions of this agreement commit defendants to developing a process for evaluating the special education and related services delivered at charter, as well as other, schools and a process at OSSE for resolving complaints about charter, as well as other, schools.

Compensatory Education

17. Defendants will implement Attachment A, an agreement regarding compensatory education reached by the parties during the ADR process.

Parent Center

18. Defendants will contract with an independent agency to implement the provisions of paragraphs 67-69 of the Decree. Defendants will continue to work with Paula Goldberg, executive director of PACER in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on describing expectations for the Parent Center and evaluating prospective contractors.² The Parent Center will serve all students with a disability or suspected disability and their families, whether in DCPS, a charter school, or a nonpublic placement.

19. By February 1, 2008, defendants will enter into a contract with an independent agency to operate the parent center starting April 1, 2008. The contract will be for three years. During the pendency of the Blackman/Jones case, decisions about continuation and renewal of the contract will be made by a three person committee of: Paula Goldberg or her designee; an individual designated by defendants; and an individual designated by plaintiffs, who may be one of plaintiffs’ counsel.

Joint Statement

20. By February 1, 2008, the parties will prepare a joint statement on (a) the “diligent efforts” required by paragraphs 7(a) and 52 of the Decree and (b) whether defendants will promulgate a written policy to guide staff in making “diligent efforts” under paragraphs 7(a) and 52, and if so, by what date and through what process. If the parties cannot agree on a joint statement, the written statement will identify and explain the parties’ disagreement.

Staffing

21. By February 1, 2008, defendants will hire ten staff to work for Tameria Lewis and Richard Nyankori on implementation of this agreement. Four additional staff will be hired to work for Tameria Lewis, and six additional staff will be hired to work for Richard Nyankori.

22. If the parties determine that an exemption from the District’s personnel processes is needed to implement paragraph 21 above, the parties will immediately seek the Court’s approval of an appropriate order to this effect.

23. A plaintiffs’ representative will participate in the hiring process for the ten staff. Plaintiffs will have no formal say in the hiring process; however, the views of plaintiffs will be seriously considered.

24. By February 1, 2008, the parties will attempt to reach agreement on whether additional staff are needed to implement the Decree or this agreement and, if so, in what positions and how such positions should be created and/or staff hired.

25. By February 1, 2008, defendants will evaluate and report to plaintiffs whether implementation of the Decree or this agreement requires further exemptions from the District’s personnel process in addition to any exemption that may be required to implement paragraph 21 above. If so, the parties will immediately seek the Court’s approval of an appropriate order to this effect.

Case Managers

26. Defendants will contract for a case management program that will be operational on or before April 1, 2008. The initial budget for the program will be at least $3 million (on an annual basis). Prior to the commencement of operations, defendants and plaintiffs will brief class counsel for Petties on the mission of the case management project, including any measurable performance indicators. Defendants and plaintiffs will brief Petties counsel on the project six months after the start of the project.

27. The program will be consistent with Attachment B, a draft scope of work for the contractor.

28. Defendants will continue to use Narrell Joyner and Michael Terkletaub as consultants for the case management program. Defendants will also use these individuals in evaluating the program.

29. By August 1, 2008, the parties will try to reach agreement on revisions to and/or expansion of the program.

Nonpublic Unit

30. By February 1, 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan for the Nonpublic Unit. The parties will consult with Special Master Elise Baach and Petties counsel concerning the plan.

31. Defendants will seriously consider plaintiffs’ proposal that the Nonpublic Unit be abolished and its functions reside elsewhere. Under plaintiffs’ proposal, bill payment would be performed by OSSE’s business department under the supervision of the CFO. Program evaluation would be performed by OSSE as part of a larger (and integrated) effort to evaluate -using a unified process and set of expectations -- DCPS schools, charter schools, and private placements. “Folder” schools would be responsible for participating in the IEP process.

32. No change to the Nonpublic Unit will be made unless it is reasonably certain that the special education system’s performance will be improved by the change.

Program Evaluation

33. Beginning in January 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will design a process, to be implemented on a significant scale by the beginning of the next school year (8/086/09), for evaluating the provision of special education and related services to students in DCPS schools, charter schools, and private placements. The process will evaluate fidelity to the expectations for the delivery of special education and related services at the school level developed pursuant to paragraph 61.

34. Information from the program evaluation process will be used to help manage D.C.’s special education system and to inform D.C.’s reform efforts.

35. Defendants will employ Paul Vincent of the Child Welfare Group in Montgomery, Alabama, as a consultant to this effort.

36. The parties will consult with Special Master Elise Baach and Petties counsel concerning the process.

Pilot Schools

37. Beginning in January 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan to create, by the beginning of the next school year (8/08-6/09), two clusters³ of schools that will be exemplary in their delivery of special education and related services. The plan will include using, in each pilot school, the School–Wide Applications Model, with a track record of improving the academic performance of special education students, as well as their regular education peers, in urban school districts with a high percentage of low-income students. The program relies on, among other things, a school-wide positive behavioral support model.

38. By December 1, 2008, defendant, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan for expanding the pilot to at least four additional clusters of schools.

Initiative to Reduce Private Placements

39. Beginning in January 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan to create, by July 1, 2008, a mechanism for providing incentives to high quality schools to increase their capacity to serve special education students. The plan will focus on approximately 5-10 high performing schools. Priority will be given to creating capacity in these schools to serve students now in private placements or at risk of being placed in a private school.

40. The purpose of this pilot is to provide additional choices to D.C. families. Defendants will not in any way use this pilot to coerce families, through an HOD or otherwise, into giving up or forgoing a private school placement for their child.

41. If a participating family is dissatisfied with a placement provided under this initiative, the student will be permitted to return to the student’s prior placement in the next school year.

42. The pilot schools will commit to meeting students’ needs in the most inclusive manner appropriate to the student’s needs. Schools will receive a percentage of the amount that would have been spent on a nonpublic placement to invest in the creation of services desired by the family and to enrich the local school’s offerings. It is anticipated that each participating school will serve approximately 10 students under the pilot.

43. The parties will consult with Special Master Elise Baach and Petties counsel concerning the plan.

Contract Schools or Programs

44. Beginning in January 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan to create, by the end of the current school year, contract schools and/or contract programs within schools. It is anticipated that the plan will rely on high quality performing private schools as contractors. The plan will be crafted so as not to increase the number of, or strengthen the role of, segregated settings.

45. The parties will consult with Special Master Elise Baach and Petties counsel concerning the plan.

Mental Health Services

46. By April 1, 2008, defendants will improve the delivery of mental health services to students in accordance with a plan developed in collaboration with plaintiffs. The plan will expand capacity and, as appropriate, modify existing services. Defendants will devote to implementation of the plan at least $500,000 for the current school year and at least $3 million for the next (8/08-6/09) school year.

47. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the plan will give priority to the provision of improved mental health services during the next (8/08-6/09) school year to: students in the pilot schools referenced in paragraphs 37-38 above; students in the pilot referenced in paragraphs 39-42 above; and students on the caseloads of case managers.

48. Defendants will use Knute Rotto of Choices, Inc., in Indianapolis, Indiana, as a consultant. By January 1, 2008, defendants will contract with Mr. Rotto. Mr. Rotto’s scope of work will include identifying and evaluating mental health services and evaluations presently provided in schools or as a related service, and making recommendations for improvement, as well as evaluating defendants’ use of Medicaid to finance these services and recommending strategies for increasing federal reimbursements.

49. Defendants’ plan will consider the available mental health resources in the District and describe how these resources will be used on behalf of students. As appropriate, the plan will be developed in collaboration with DMH, CFSA, and DYRS.

Other Related Services

50. By March 1, 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop a plan for evaluating and improving the provision of related services other than mental health services, including development of an effective process for identifying and addressing related service lapses.

51. By March 1, 2008, defendants, in collaboration with plaintiffs, will develop and implement a written policy that identifies the process and criteria that DCPS will itself use to award compensatory education when related services are not adequately provided. The process, which will be tied to the IEP process, will involve parents and respect their views.

52. The policy developed pursuant to paragraph 51 will not be used to avoid or impede hearing officers awarding compensatory education or avoid or impede hearing officers determining the nature and amount of compensatory education that may be due.

Data

53. Defendants will use their best efforts to develop an accurate and reliable data system in conformity with paragraphs 60-65 of the Decree. By January 1, 2008, defendants will identify the date by which they expect to have an accurate and reliable data system that meets the requirements of the Decree.

54. Defendants will continue to contract with Rebecca Klemm to maintain the “Klemm data base” until a new data system is developed, and its functionality and accuracy is confirmed.

Student Hearing Office

55. Defendants will secure a consultant to help them improve the operations of the Student Hearing Office. The scope of work for the consultant will be consistent with Attachment C to this agreement.

State Complaint Process

56. By May 1, 2008, defendants will implement an effective state complaint process that conforms with 34 C.F.R. 300.151-153.

57. The process will be available to resolve complaints regarding students in DCPS schools, charter schools, and private placements, including complaints regarding the implementation of HODs and SAs.⁴

58. The process must ensure that OSSE has the power to require corrective actions of – and, as appropriate, to withhold funds from and/or impose other sanctions on DCPS, charter schools, and private placements.

Resolution Sessions

59. Defendants will implement Attachment D, an agreement regarding resolution sessions reached by the parties during the ADR process.

60. The parties recognize that, if defendants waive a large number of resolution sessions, this is likely to increase for a period of months the number of due process hearings that must be held and the number of HODs and SAs issued. During these months, defendants’ compliance with their obligations under paragraphs 29 and 42(b) of the Decree is likely to decline.

Expectations for Schools

61. By January 15, 2008, the parties will agree on a schedule and process for identifying defendants’ expectations for the delivery of special education and related services at the school level, as well as how those expectations might require changes in infrastructure at the school, regional, DCPS, and “state” level. In this process, defendants will consider: means by which the IEP process can be made more meaningful, the extent to which authority and resources should reside at the school level, and crafting appropriate financial incentives.

Miscellaneous

62. The parties will agree on a schedule for plaintiffs requesting upward adjustments pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Decree.

63. By February 1, 2008, the parties will meet to determine whether and how the February 1999 Order of Reference might be revised.

AGREED TO: /s/

Peter J. Nickles For Defendants
/s/
DATE: 12/10/07 
Ira A. Burnim For Plaintiffs
DATE: 12/10/07

AGREEMENT REGARDING BLACKMAN/JONES COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

** Note: On October 1, 2007, Defendants transferred the responsibility for providing Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education awards from DCPS to OSSE.¹

DCPS was required to send, within 60 days of the Court granting Final Approval of the Consent Decree, existing class members a copy of the Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education Catalog (the “Catalog”) and a letter describing the category of award to which each student was entitled. By November 2006, the Catalog has been mailed to all 6,510 existing class members. However, the mailing did not conform to the requirements of paragraph 79 of Consent Decree because no proof of delivery was obtained by the subcontractor DCPS selected to conduct the mailing. Since the original mailing to the 6,510 known class members in November 2006, DCPS has not subsequently notified any “future” class members of their entitlement to Blackman/Jones compensatory education as required by paragraph 77 of the Decree.

OSSE is committed to a renewed effort to reach those remaining students on the original list who have not yet accessed the awards that are available to them as class members and to make contact with those students who have become class members since the original list was compiled. In order to bring Defendants into compliance with the Consent Decree provisions regarding Blackman/Jones compensatory education, the parties agree as follows:

I. For the purposes of this effort, the parties have agreed to the following two categories of class members:

A. “Current Class Members” are:

1. Those class members from the original list of 6,510 class members who have not yet elected to receive products and/or services from the Catalog or have not opted out of the Catalog award by affirmatively requesting an MDT meeting to determine an appropriate award.

2. All students who have become Blackman/Jones class members since the date the original class list was generated2 through March 1, 2008.³

B. “Future Class Members” are ”all class members who join the class after March 1, 2008.” The identification, notification and treatment of these class members will be discussed by parties at a later date.

II. Awards: To improve the administration of the award program and encourage selection of awards by class members, the parties have agreed to simplify the awards choices offered to Current Class Members.

A. All Current Class Members will be offered the choice of either:

1. Desktop Computer, pre-loaded with Microsoft Vista (or its Apple equivalent, believed to be Mac OS X Leopard) and Microsoft Office (Home and Student Version), plus 2 software items selected by the current class member⁴,

2. Notebook Computer, pre-loaded with Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Office (Home and Student Version), plus 2 software items selected by the current class member,

3.. MacBook Pro (Apple notebook), pre-loaded with the Apple equivalent of Microsoft Vista (believed to be Mac OS X Leopard) and Microsoft Office (Home and Student Version) plus 2 software items selected by the current class member, or

4. For those current class members who would benefit more from goods or services other than a computer, they will be invited to call OSSE to discuss the alternatives that were previously offered in the Best Buy Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education Catalog (Catalogue), including transition services (i.e. GED program, tutoring, or counseling) or assistive technologies (i.e. wheelchair, physical therapy devices, or other goods or services contained in the Best Buy catalog). All options that were made available in the Catalogue will continue to be available to current class members.

B. The parties will attempt to reach agreement, by March 1, 2008, on Blackman/Jones compensatory awards for future class members.

III. Outreach

A. Mailed notices with delivery confirmation will be followed by telephone calls to class members who have not responded within 30 days.

B. A community-based contractor will be retained to develop and implement a process to make contact with and give notice to class members who remain unresponsive after mailing and calling efforts.

1. By February 1, 2008, OSSE will draft an appropriate RFP for this contract for the review of plaintiffs and the Evaluation Team.

2. The contractor will be retained to begin work no more than 90 days after notice is mailed and will continue outreach efforts for a number of days, not less than 60 days, that will be agreed to between plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The contractor will be required to advise parents of the services available at the Parent Resource Center.

4. Compensation for the contractor will be tied in part to successful delivery of awards to recipients.

C. Defendants will keep plaintiffs apprised of the progress of the notice and outreach efforts. Defendants will advise plaintiffs in writing of when the notice and outreach efforts required in this agreement have been completed, after which time no further notice or outreach to current class members will be required. If the plaintiffs disagree with defendants’ representation in this regard, the matter will be referred to the Monitor, who will determine what, if any, further outreach is required by this agreement.

D. Any current class member, who, within 90 days of the completion of outreach efforts, fails to inform OSSE (a) of the choice of an award or (b) theat the class member choses to seek compensatory education by the means otherwise available under the Consent Decree waives the right to Blackman/Jones compensatory education.

IV. Identification and Written Notification of Current Class Members

A. By January 1, 2008, OSSE will compile and provide to plaintiffs the following two lists:

1. A list of all students who have become Blackman/Jones class members since the date the original class list was generated.

2. A list of all students for whom Klemm Analysis Group has been unable to determine class membership status due to lack of implementation information. Defendants will have until January 15, 2008 to determine whether the students are class members. In all cases where DCPS is unable to verify timely implementation of an HOD, the student will be considered a current class member.

B. By January 1, 2008 OSSE will propose, in writing, a work plan that, at minimum, includes the following:

1. mailing procedures (for example, what business process will be followed to carry out the next mailing),

2. draft text for the mailing for review and comment by plaintiffs and the Evaluation Team,

3. the terms under which OSSE will use Best Buy and other third party contractors, if any,⁵

4. telephone follow-up procedures, including documentation procedures, and

5. any projected staffing needs and proposals to address them.

C. By January 1, 2008 OSSE will produce a list of all current class members that contains the most up-to-date contact information available to DCPS and/or OSSE including information from the school census and the transportation database.

D. By February 1, 2008 OSSE, through its third-party vendor, will have mailed a notice of award to all current class members.

E. By March 1, 2008, follow up calls to class members will commence under the terms of the OSSE’s work plan.

CASE MANAGEMENT DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK

I. Contractor will hire, train, and supervise 30 case managers. 

a. Supervision will be at a rate of 1:6

b. 37 Total FTEs:

i. Director

ii. Admin/Support staff

iii. 5 Case Manager Supervisors

iv. 30 Case Managers

c. Need a performance plan for the program as a whole where deliverables and goals will be defined

II. The job of the case managers will be to:

a. Build a trusting relationship with each student on the case manager's case load and the student's family, including making home visits.

b. Facilitate implementation of the student's IEP or HOD/SA, including by:

i. Advocating with the MDT and others for the student's educational and related service to be identified and met,

ii. Encouraging creative strategies for meeting the student's needs,

iii. Facilitating agreements between the MDT and the student's family concerning the special education and related services the student will receive, and

iv. Committing resources as described in paragraph IV below.

c. Collect data on deliverables

i. Could include rates of placement, # of HODs, amount of services received by students, etc.

III. To successfully perform their job, case managers will need to:

a. Become fully familiar with the child and his/her IEP and educational and related service needs, current placement, and outstanding issues with the IEP or HOD/SA,

b. Work in collaboration with general and special education teachers and administration, members of the MDT, and related service providers, so as to be seen is seen as a problem-solving ally of the school system and the MDT, 

c. Attend MDT meetings,

d. Be knowledgeable about different models of service, available resources, and strategies for meeting students' needs in the most integrated educational setting, especially family-centered, culturally and linguistically appropriate practices and strengths-based approach

e. Have authority to commit resources as described in paragraph IV below. 

f. Able to work with families in home and community 

g. Coordinating and linking with community resources 

h. Accessing natural supports and services

IV. Case managers will have authority to commit specific resources on behalf of students in their case load. These resources -- paid for OSSE and not the contractor -- will enhance what is available to the MDT and may include timely access to related services and/or flex funds that can be expended to overcome specific barriers. OSSE will develop a process by which case managers can access resources on behalf of specific children. The process will identify, e.g., the resources that may be accessed, ceilings on expenditures, and eligibility standards. 

a. Vendor will provide budget that includes a flat costs for the flex funds, excluding related services. When related services are required and the school cannot timely meet the students need, the Case Manager Vendor will pay for these services and directly bill OSSE for reimbursement.

V. OSSE will ensure that case managers will have access to needed information, including information in electronic records, school, and legal records.

VI. Contractor will maintain records and preserve their confidentiality. Additionally, contractor will prepare periodic reports to OSSE and participating schools about students in their caseload.

VII. OSSE, in consultation with contractor, will decide which children will get priority access to case managers.

VIII. It is anticipated that initially the average case load of a case manager will be 15 children, not to exceed 20 children for any case manager. Siblings should normally be assigned to the same case manager. Students whose first language, or whose family's first language is not English should wherever possible be assigned to a case manager fluent in their first language.

IX. OSSE and contractor may agree, in the future, to contractor hiring, training, and supervising additional case managers, above and beyond the 30 covered by this contract.

X. OSSE and contractor understand that:

a. The initiative will evolve as case managers are deployed and learn more about the operations of DCPS, charter schools, and contractors.

b. OSSE and DCPS will enter into an MOA to facilitate implementation of the initiative.

c. Information collected through the initiative will help inform larger system reforms that are needed.

XI. Timelines

a. November and December 2007: working on a contract

b. January 2008: Hiring people until end of February

c. End of March 2008: case managers are trained and ready 

d. April 1, 2008: Case management program starts

e. Summer: will still have programs but activity will slow down, enabling a time of professional development going into the 2008-2009 school year.

OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION

CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES

Gail Imobersteg, (hereafter called the Contractor) agrees to provide the following services to the Student Hearing Office (hereafter called the SHO) located in the Office of Compliance and Review within the Office of the State Superintendent of Education for the District of Columbia (hereafter called the Client) for Phase I of a project that is anticipated to be conducted over two (II) Phases, with the first Phase beginning October 25, 2007:

I. SCOPE OF WORK. Under the proposed contract, the Contractor agrees to provide the below-listed services, providing reports and participating in meetings on an ongoing and as-required basis throughout the contract term.

A. Define the qualifications, functions and responsibilities of the Chief Hearing Officer

1. Develop contract/employment plans for scheduling configurations for service of hearing officers (some full time; some part time; number in each status, etc.) and consider how or if such impact job descriptions.

2. Develop a criteria-based definition of the qualifications, function and responsibilities of the SHO Chief Hearing Officer and hearing officers, based on national best practices.

3. Provide technical assistance to OSSE and participate in recruitment activities for the CHO, as requested.

4. Conduct initial training of the selected CHO, if hired and in the position prior to January 31, 2008.

B. Define the qualifications, functions, responsibilities and performance criteria of the SHO Hearing Officers, with consideration given to the

1. Develop potential contract/employment plans for scheduling configurations for service of SHO hearing officers (some full time; some part time; number in each status, etc.) and consider how or if such impact job descriptions.

2. Review and provide and assessment of the current qualifications, job functions and responsibilities of existing SHO hearing officers; Recommend revisions/define the qualifications, functions and responsibilities of the Hearing Officers consistent with IDEA and DC law and standard and best practices.

3. Develop performance evaluation criteria for hearing officers, with consideration given to the nature of the current output of hearing officers.

4. Review one HOD, if available, for each Hearing Officer to determine skill level generally and random administrative records closed in the past 90 days.

5. Develop performance evaluation policies and procedures and criteria for Hearing Officers as compared to best practices, to include basic criteria to be evaluated, sources of data and methods of collection

6. Provide technical assistance to the Client relating to the contracts and recruitment of Hearing Officers by December 14, 2007.

7. Review and provide an assessment of the current contract terms for contracted Hearing Officers.

8. Work with the client to develop contracts for hearing officers, and if needed, bid proposal for hearing officers.

C. Define the qualifications, functions and responsibilities of the SHO Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

1. After a review of the management and operation of the SHO and consultation the client, develop qualifications, function and responsibilities for Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

2. Provide technical assistance and participate in recruitment activities for the CAO, as requested.

D. Organization of files (cases within the past 90 days will receive priority).

1. Review administrative records closed in the last 90 days for current business processes and to identify issues relating to the hearing officers' organization of returned hearing records and issues relating to the 'administrative' file of the SHO.

2. Provide technical assistance to the consultant on legal document management for cases completed in the past 90 days and archived records on the unique business processes for special education due process complaints.

3. Develop a protocol for the Hearing Officers' maintenance of a record of all proceedings from appointment to final disposition and the return of the complete, organized, indexed administrative record certified as true and correct.

4. Conduct training of Hearing Officers, on the protocol for maintenance of records.

E. Develop of an appropriate business process for case docketing, including the intake and processing of complaints, records, legal filings, and overall records management, with strong consideration given to how this business process will interact or be modified by adoption of an electronic docketing system.

1. Review current case docketing and proposed business processes to date with consideration of the proposed changes in business processes regarding case docketing adopted by the OSSE, identify business process impacts on an electronic docketing system;

2. Provide technical assistance to personnel developing the case docketing system.

F. Continuances.

1. Support of SHO and hearing officers in implementation of a written continuance form that meets the requirements of the Consent Decree; make recommendations regarding modifications, as needed, to the continuance form and process, to make fully effective and operational.

2. Work with any personnel, consultant or organization identified by the client whose responsibility it is to ensure that continuance information and data can be properly translated into data inputs for timeline compliance calculation purposes.

3. The contractor will attend and participate as requested in the October 29, 2007 hearing officer training on the continuance form provisions;

G. SHO staffing capacity.

1. Support the client evaluating current administrative staff, identify needs, make recommendations, and provide training that is intended to dissolve known operational problems (ex. communication to parties & LEAs).

2. Conduct a follow-up of staff training to ensure/verify intended results, providing alternatives and additional technical assistance if prior training and recommendations are unsuccessful in resolving the problems and assist in the implementation of these measures, as requested.

H. Development of policies and practices concerning the scheduling of hearing officers to cases in a manner that will facilitate early assignment of cases and conduct of pre-hearing conferences and status conferences, as appropriate to manage assigned cases.

1. Review current policies and practices concerning scheduling of hearing officers.

2. Solicit hearing officer input on the current scheduling process and proposed early assignment of cases.

3. Develop policies and practices on the early scheduling of hearing officers to cases after the receipt of a due process complaint.

I. Identify systemic performance lapses and areas where new or modified regulations, policies, or practices are needed to ensure the SHO functions as a fully operational, service oriented, fair and independent state hearing office housed within a "real" state education agency. Coordinate with Contractor I to ensure consistency with Contractor I's efforts.

J. Other Contractor Duties.

1. Develop appropriate forms as needed, to include development of a pre-hearing agenda and checklist for Hearing Officers, format for HODs that meet standard legal practice, including orders that are clear, time certain, and verifiable.

2. Provide recommendations to eliminate impediments to the production of transcripts in a timely manner.

3. Collaborate with OSSE senior staff, SHO staff and with other consultants retained by the OSSE relative to this contract throughout the contract period and provide technical assistance as requested by the OS SE, including areas of need identified by the contractor and approved by OSSE, taking into consideration the specific contractual duties described above.

4. Reporting/meeting with public members/bodies and the Court Monitor as required and as directed by the OSSE regarding the implementation of management and operational changes effected during the contract.

C.3 DELIVERABLES

DRAFT AGREEMENT REGARDING RESOLUTION SESSIONS

DCPS is committed to making resolution sessions meaningful and to improving the quality and effectiveness of the resolution process through good faith efforts to reach mutually acceptable settlements of due process complaints.

As noted in the Interim Report of the Evaluation Team, filed February 8, 2007, the parties recognize that at present, for a variety of reasons, resolution sessions often do not accomplish their intended purpose. To remedy this condition, the parties agree as follows:

1. By April 4, DCPS will recruit, select, and train approximately ten (10) resolution specialists to conduct resolution sessions. The specialists will be distributed district-wide, according to need, through DCPS’s instructional divisions.

a.. DCPS will begin actively recruiting from a pool of experienced persons full-time employees and/or contractors by December 10, 2007.

b. The specialists will be selected by February 5, 2007 on the basis of their experience in dispute resolution, their ability to train school-based staff in mediation and their empathy with parties involved in resolution sessions.

c. The specialists will be trained by March 3, 2007.

2. DCPS will develop, in collaboration with plaintiffs, operating procedures, polices, and protocols for resolution sessions. This will include developing short and long term strategies to communicate resolution session notes to the Student Hearing Office and other parties.

3. DCPS will increase capacity in the OGC to handle any temporary increase in due process hearings that may result from implementation of this agreement, through measures such as facilitating the early screening and review of all due process complaints and hiring more legal staff. The parties accept the possibility that the defendants’ efforts to meet the timely compliance requirements of the Blackman/Jones Consent Decree may temporarily be impeded when this agreement is implemented. The parties agree that this is an acceptable risk given the anticipated value of the implementation.

a. NOTE: The SHO SOP specifies that “Unless otherwise provided by law, every letter or document, including every pleading, motion, or notification filed with the Student Hearing Office shall simultaneously be served on all parties or party representatives by the same method as the document was filed with the SHO, except that service by facsimile may be substituted for personal service.”¹

b. By March 1, 2008, the SHO will develop policies and procedures to transmit all due process complaints to the OSE/OGC within one business day of the filing of the complaint with the SHO. By March 1, 2008, the Policies and Procedures of the Student Hearing Office will provide for pre-hearing conferences to be held prior to the scheduled date for a hearing.

4. Scheduling of the resolution sessions will be handled by a master scheduler.

5. Each resolution specialist will be responsible for training at least one member of the school-based staff, such as the Principal, Assistant Principal or designee, on the implementation of successful resolution sessions. The goal of this training will be to strengthen the school’s capacity to conduct successful resolution sessions;

6. In addition:

a. Principals and Special Education Coordinators will become aware of the resources available to them to meet the educational and related services needs of students, either directly through DCPS or through third-party contractors, and the scope of their authority to incur expenditures for such resources; and

b. In addition to relevant members of the IEP Team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the complaint, the Principal or a designee with authority to resolve the complaint will be present at all resolution sessions.

7. DCPS has authority to award fees as part of a resolution reached at a resolution session. The operating procedures, polices, and protocols for resolution sessions to be developed under paragraph 2 above will address fee awards.

8. During the 2007-2008 school year, DCPS will use the approach described above in schools to be determined and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of resolution sessions at such schools.

9. Where the above approach is not being implemented, DCPS will waive having a resolution session when the parent waives having a resolution session.

1. Paragraph 139 of the Decree broadly exempts defendants from the District’s procurement process in implementing the Decree.

2. If Ms. Goldberg or any other consultant named in this agreement is unable to serve or continue to serve as a consultant, the parties will agree on the consultant’s replacement.

3. A “cluster” in the School-Wide Applications Model is a group of schools: four elementary schools; two elementary schools and one middle school; two middle schools; or one high school.

4. This provision is not intended to require that a parent use the state complaint process before or instead of requesting or participating in a due process hearing.

1. As part of the transfer, the dedicated funding for Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education was transferred as well on October 1, 2007. OSSE is now fully in control of spending from this fund and no memorandum of understanding with DCPS is necessary to ensure access to these funds to implement this agreement.

2. OSSE, working with Klemm Analysis Group, should identify this date as soon as possible.

3. This date in the future has been selected by the parties as a way of recognizing that, until there are improvements in Student Hearing Office administration and other functions, it is unlikely that OSSE, like DCPS before it, will have the capacity to identify and notify class future class members of award eligibility on a rolling basis.

4. It is anticipated that the selection of the additional software items will occur in one of two ways: 1) A Best Buy voucher or gift card that will enable the current class member to select educational software at a Best Buy Store will be provided with each selected computer, or 2) Best Buy will provide current class members a list of software titles from which they will be able to select two items.

5. As soon as possible, OSSE should determine from Best Buy the product specifications of the computers to be offered and whether software vouchers will be offered of a software selection list will be provided.

1. The requirement for SHO transmission of all complaints to the OGC is intended as a failsafe in the event that there are problems with the service of the complaint as described in the SHO SOP.