Dyslexia Awareness and
(805) 963-7339
Mayor Marty
Blum and City Council Members
City Hall
RE: The Santa Barbara District Attorney's 1997- 2003 Truancy Prevention and
Parent Accountability Program.[1]
The profound problems associated with the Program’s impact on students with
Learning and Mental Health disabilities and the need for immediate attention.
Dear Mayor
Blum and City Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with specific
information regarding the Santa Barbara Truancy Prevention & Parents
Accountability Program in the hope of bringing to your attention that this
program is not functioning for the benefit of all students and our community.
In its present form, it is causing incalculable damage to the lives of many
children and families. I am urging you, as public officials, to take action to
improve or disband this program.
The truancy program has been intertwined with non-compliance
of special education laws since its inception. Yet it was not set up either by
the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office or the
This
document is lengthy, as it has been prepared so as to provide you and other
agencies with necessary information for an investigation of the truancy
program. The
I
believe the information contained in this document and the attachments will
show that the above mentioned education agencies and schools brought in law
enforcement, by way of the Truancy Program, to aid them in avoiding compliance
with special education laws.
“Individuals
With Disabilities Act (IDEA): Juvenile Court System Cannot Be Used To Avoid
IDEA Compliance.”
29
Individual with Disabilities Education. Law Rep 3000.
1. Overview of the truancy problem:
Civil rights are being denied and children with disabilities
are being punished and criminalized, instead of having their disabilities
addressed. Every year, a number of students with assessed and un-assessed
learning and attention disabilities are forced into the Truancy Program because
of alleged truancy. Students are ordered to appear before a judge, put on
probation and threatened with time in Juvenile Hall. As you will read later on in this document,
parents are threatened with both jail time and monetary sanctions, up to
$5000.00. For unsophisticated parents, economically deprived families,
single-parent households, or English-illiterate parents, the program creates a
great burden of emotional and economic stress.
Truancy Program is
quick to allocate harsh sanctions for the symptoms of truancy, while failing to
address the underlying problems that many of these students have: learning and
or attention disabilities and depression. Many children with disabilities have
been through all the required phases in the truancy program several times, over
many years, and are still not getting the services they need. Furthermore, even
students with a high rate of truancy recidivism are still not receiving the special education services they need. These
students soon find themselves back in the truancy program. Two such students,
who have aged out of the truancy program, were in the Santa Barbara Superior
Court House last month waiting to go in front of a judge. Both of these girls
are now young women and they are still reading at a third grade level, as will
be elaborated on below.
.
The Santa Barbara District’s Special Education Director
wrote the grant application for the Truancy Program but it was never designed
to address students' special education needs. However, it can be argued, that
the Truancy Program has become a "catch-all" for local schools to
avoid compliance with special education laws. Instead of servicing the special
education needs of allegedly truant students, schools are avoiding their
responsibility by placing these students in the Truancy Program and
criminalizing them.
An equally controversial component of the program is its
very conception. This will be discussed in greater detail below. The Truancy Program dovetails with the 1991
Federal Legislature requiring the “mainstreaming” of special education
students, in public schools, into the regular education classrooms. In 1991
students in
The Truancy Program implemented in 1987 also dovetailed with
the findings by the State Department of Education that the Santa Barbara School
District was out of compliance with special education laws both in1995 and
1996. Both investigations found the district was out of compliance for not
identifying students with learning disabilities and serving them. Article 1
section 56300 “Identification and Referral – Systematically Seek Out” of the
California Special Education Laws.
The apparent strategies used to set up the Truancy Program
enables the Santa Barbara School District and the County Office of Education to
avoid implementing the special education laws and dealing with students’
special education needs.
Santa Barbara District Attorney Sneddon continues to inform
the public and the Santa Barbara School District Trustees that his Truancy
Program is a success while concealing the real facts. Time and time again, he
has presented accountings to the public by way of the media, at public meetings
and at school board meetings of students involved in the Truancy Program. He
has given the same documentation to the grantors of the Truancy Grant. Time and
time again, he has refused to account for those students whose parents have had
the wherewithal to escape the unrelenting unfairness, harshness and violations
of Constitutional Rights of the Truancy Program. Other families, with low
incomes, have resorted to changing school districts, home schooling,
independent studies or searching for scholarships for private schools, in order
to save them from the Truancy Program. These, to, are students whose civil
rights for special education services were denied and overlooked by the schools
and the Truancy Program. These students are also the ones that are “missing”
from the District Attorney’s truancy accounting reports.
In December of 2001, I spoke with a
Santa Barbara Deputy Probation Officer in Santa Barbara Juvenile Court
regarding the erroneous accounting of students in the Truancy Program. The
officer with whom I spoke could not give me the number of unaccounted-for
truant students since the program started. Instead, he responded with a
flippant remark, "We've only lost
about fifty kids this year; that's not bad." When I asked him
where those 50 students from the Truancy program were, he replied, "We don't know, but fifty kids is not a
lot of kids."
The Truancy Program is not functioning properly if even one
truancy student is unaccounted for or "lost" in the system.
Furthermore, fifty kids is a lot of
kids. This is only one problem, among the many others, I will be presenting
regarding the Truancy Program.
As governing officials of Santa Barbara, it is imperative
that you understand that the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Truancy
Prevention and Parent Accountability Program is not functioning as it should be
which is for the benefit and betterment of the students in our community. In
fact, in its present form, it is harming rather than helping students. I am
asking you, as public officials, to help reform this program, or failing
meaningful reform, to abolish it.
2.
Damage to students caused by the Truancy Program and
five illustrative cases
Children who are not remediated continue to suffer
throughout their lives. Often in high school they begin to skip school because
it is too painful to keep hearing over and over again, "You could read if
you try" or "You're just lazy." The students for whom I advocate
often feel hopeless, depressed or in despair. In some cases, some have
attempted to cope by turning to illegal drugs. These children have lost all
hope of ever being able to read. They feel the future holds little for them.
Many stay illiterate, become homeless, live on welfare, live in abusive
marriages and do not have the skills to support themselves or their children.
Not all of the children in the truancy program have
unrecognized disabilities. Some of these students are in special education and
have documented disabilities. Even with documentation on their
disabilities, the students are still not receiving the special education
services they need. Services they are entitled to receive by law.
District Attorney Thomas Sneddon's own words indicate his
lack of knowledge about the connection between learning disabilities and
truancy. In a quote taken from the
Following
are five cases of such students. You are free to decide for yourselves, if
these children have had “more bites out of the apple than they ever deserve.”
We have numerous, well-documented cases, which are similar
to the examples documented below. They date back to 1998 and illustrate the
problems of the Truancy Program.
a) Jenny
In 1998, an article appeared in the
Jenny is nineteen now. I met her
last month at the Santa Barbara Court House. She was on her way to appear in
front of a judge. She is still illiterate and filled with low self-esteem. I
asked her how she is doing. Her response to me was “I am still stupid.”
b) Ann
Ann is a special education student,
I began to advocate for her in August 2002.
Ann had never been in trouble with law enforcement until she entered the
truancy program. She spent all her school day in special education classes
until 7th grade. The school removed her from her special education
class and placed her in regular education classes. Ann could not function in
her regular education classes. She started to become depressed and then truant.
She is totally illiterate and has been diagnosed with severe multiple learning
disabilities. Ann was ordered into court many times because of the truancy
program. She has been through every
phase of the Truancy Program for two years, including the
I met Ann one week before she aged out of the
truancy program. I attended her last court appearance. Ann’s probation
officer’s report to the court stated: “The subject has not fulfilled all the
requirements of her probation.” “The subject failed to become rehabilitated:
“Probation facilitated an alternative school site, yet the subject has failed
to progress toward graduation. She has failed to enroll in summer school and
keep probation aware of her whereabouts.” I had to inform the judge that
Ann could not fulfill her probation requirements to progress towards
graduation. She is illiterate and the school in which probation placed her in,
El Puente,
Since September 2002 I have been advocating for Ann in the
Ann was recently locked up in prison
as an adult. A recent neuropsychological assessment documents that Ann is
illiterate and because of her multiple severe learning disabilities, she
functions psychologically at the level of a seven to eight-year-old child.
c) John
When I first met John in 2001, he
was 17 years old and his truancy case was set for trial. He had been in the
Truancy Program for two years and was on informal probation. Prior to his being
placed in the Truancy Program he had never been in trouble at school and was
very polite and shy. He was a low-profile student and his learning disabilities
were overlooked until he was fifteen. During his freshman year, John suffered
from and was treated for anxiety attacks and depression. He was identified as a
special education student, but still did not receive the services he needed.
The only help he was given was assistance with his schoolwork one hour a day.
He became increasingly depressed and lethargic until he couldn’t get out of bed
to attend school. John was required to appear before the School Attendance
Review Board (SARB) as part of the Truancy Program. They ignored his depression
and learning disabilities. Ultimately, John was ordered to Juvenile Court and
to attend El Puente, County Court school. John was searched every day for
drugs. John has never used illegal drugs. Furthermore, he is a bright,
extremely sensitive young man who has never had any behavioral problems in or
out of school. He is still depressed and still has not received services for
his special needs. John is out of school now and is still very depressed.
d) Tommy
I met Tommy in 2000. He was in the
truancy program and was in trouble with the law. Tommy’s mother had begged the
The following assessment report
documents all of the wasted years when his schools were denying Tommy
appropriate assessments and services. Documentation of inappropriate
assessments by the school from 2nd grade to age fifteen, after he
got into trouble with law enforcement. I have changed the students name and
left out the names of his schools:
Assessment report by El Puente
County Court School, November 2001:
“Tommy has been
assessed on multiple occasions throughout his schooling, an initial screening
was conducted by the resource specialist at - - school in March 1994, Tommy’s 2
nd grade year. The screening identified Tommy as being approximately one year
below grade level in reading, math and written language. Signs of attention difficulties as well as
challenges with listening comprehension were indicated at that time. Another screening was conducted by the School
Psychologist at - - school in January 1997, Tommy’s 5th grade
year. That screening identified strengths
with visual-perceptual skills and weaknesses with auditory
processing. Additional regular education
interventions were recommended at that time”.
“A complete psycho educational
evaluation was conducted in November 1999.
That report indicated severe discrepancies between Tommy’s apparent
abilities and his academic skill levels.
However, the IEP team failed to determine a processing weakness, which
was contributing to that discrepancy at that time and therefore did not find
him eligible for special education services.”
The November 2000 report goes on to describe Tommy’s sever
learning disabilities:
Verbal = 23% Low Average
Nonverbal Reasoning = 19% Low Average
Listening Comprehension = Below Average = grade 2.8
Overall writing skills = below average = grade 2.1
Math = Well below average (he performed better than only
approximately 1%
Of his peers. = Grade 5.0
Oral expression = grade 5.5
Written expression = 2.1
After many years, Tommy finally
qualified for special education services.
However, the earlier lack of much needed services to address his needs
undoubtedly contributed to his behavior problems. Today Tommy is functionally
illiterate and is at high risk for future problems with law enforcement.
e)
Carlos: Age 15, April 2003. Carlos has never
been in trouble with the law until he
was placed in the truancy program. Carlos’ parents had been
requesting an assessment for learning disabilities from the Santa Barbara
District for two years when Carlos was seven years old. Their requests were
ignored. The Principal informed the parents their son would be placed on a
two-year waiting list. The child could not read or write. A teacher told the
parent the school was violating the law and she needed to go outside the school
for some help.
Carlos has been in special education
classes for the past seven years and he has still not received the services he
needed for his disabilities. In March 2003. Carlos’ mother contacted me to
attend an IEP meeting (special education meeting) with Carlos and his mother.
Carlos was failing all his classes (he still struggles with reading and
spelling) he has become so depressed he does not want to attend school. Carlos
had over 163 unexcused absences from school. He is now in the Truancy
Prevention Program. Carlos has not receiving the special services he needs and
he, not the school district personnel, is being punished by way of the Truancy
Program. As Carlos’ truancies increased school personnel who attended his
special education meetings (IEP) never suggested further assessment to see why
he did not want to attend school. No one at his special education meetings
suggested an assessment to see how severely depressed he was, nor did they
review his special education services to see to see if they are appropriate.
The only thing the assistant principal and the special education team did was
to try and push Carlos out of their school into El Puente County Court School.
Through the truancy program Carlos was ordered to attend a meeting with the
“School Attendance Review Board” (SARB) through the truancy program. One more
time, Carlos’ special education needs were not taken into consideration. SARB
members recommended that Carlos be sent to El Puente County Court School.
At the March 2003 IEP (special
education meeting) Carlos’ mother and I refused to agree and let the assistant
principal of
“Carlos has accumulated 163 period
cuts this year. All of these absences
are unexcused. We at
“Obviously, the comprehensive high
school is the least restrictive environment available for a student.
Carlos has since been diagnosed
privately with additional disabilities: Anxiety, depression and
insomnia. Carlos’ case is just one
example of how the Truancy Prevention Program has been, and continues to be
used by some school district administrators to deny appropriate special
education services to students and move the students from school to school
without addressing the students’ special needs.
Educational and Mental Health
neglect led to student’ truancy.
All five teenagers have serious untreated learning and
attention disabilities and have developed secondary emotional disabilities.
What led these teenagers into the truancy program is the culmination of years
of educational and mental health neglect. Inadequate assessments have guided
their educational programs.
3. Spanish Translators are available in
Juvenile Court while
Learning Disability Specialists and Advocates,
trained in Special
Education Rights and Responsibilities are not
available for the
Judge, Public Defender, parents and students.
The truancy program employs
law-enforcement techniques such as requiring the payment of court costs, the
threat of sanctions up to $5000.00, and threatening parents with jail time. If the students do not respond to the
sanctions, they are then placed on probation. When they appear in court for
their truancy actions, they do so without an advocate specializing in
disabilities. There is always a Spanish translator available to parents but no
learning disability specialist. There is no information available on learning
disabilities or Special Education Rights for parents attending the Juvenile
Court. Learning Disability Specialists and Advocates, trained in Special
Education Rights and Responsibilities are not available for the Judge, Public
Defender, parents and students.
The Truancy Program is focused on "truancy" only
and does not account nor provide for children with special education needs. In
fact, even though documentation often clearly defines the special education
needs of the child, the District Attorney's office and its partnered
institutions often choose to ignore the special education needs of the children
and deals exclusively with the issue of truancy.
Many people with good intentions
work in our Juvenile Court system. But good intentions are not always helpful
to students with learning and attention disabilities. This is where an
unbiased, trained special education advocate is needed. An advocate or an
attorney who is not part of the Truancy Program I have observed probation officers
recommending to the judge inappropriate alternative school placements for
students in the Truancy Program. These schools do not have the staff needed to
provide the intensive services these students need. I have read probation
reports given to the judge, which blame the child for actions related to their
disabilities, without the probation officer first speaking to, or asking advice
from, a specialist in the field of learning and attention disabilities. The
result is, the student is ordered by the judge to spend extra time in Juvenile
Hall for a medical condition her/she was born with. In some cases as much as
100, or more, extra days in juvenile Hall.
I have observed students in court
who simply cannot process what is being asked of them. They are expected to
respond to questions without the assistance of a specialist in learning or
attention disabilities. Student’s who have a reading disability often have word
retrieval disabilities. They struggle to find the words to respond to the judge
or other court and probation personnel. Students come out of court and they
cannot tell you one thing that what was said to them by their public defender,
the district attorney or the judge. Students are told by the judge to attend
school yet they don’t have the verbal skills to explain to the judge why they
are truant. Students who are too embarrassed in front of strangers in the
courtroom, to say they cannot read or write because they often don’t know why
they cannot read or write. They just feel stupid. Yet no one is present who is
a trained professional in disabilities to defend these children and speak up
for them in court. No one to explain why the child does not comprehend what is
being said or asked of them by the judge
I have seen a County Mental Health
psychologist; used by the district attorney in court, recommend inappropriate
school placements without a full assessment of all the child’s disabilities.
Students who came from spending full days in special education classes now
being placed in the
On
"Agency personnel
participating in the Truancy Prevention program do not appear to make
systematic attempts, as required by law, to identify and assess two groups of
truant students; (a) those who are suffering from undiagnosed and/or unremediated
learning disabilities and related conditions, and (b) those who have been
identified and assessed but not attending school because they are made to feel
stupid and lazy, and their truancy is a symptom of a more significant problem.
The ACLU's concern stems from the denial of these student's statutory
rights."[4]
As
the result of local advocates and concerned citizens testifying against the
Truancy
Program at a Santa School Board meeting in 2002, the members
of the School Board made a small attempt to correct some of the Truancy
Program's problems. The members of the Board approved the hiring of a truancy
coordinator at
5. "Lost" Students of the Truancy
Program
Unaccounted-for students were glaringly omitted from The Santa Barbara
District
Attorney’s
claims of success.
In March 2001, District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and his UCSB
research specialist gave a presentation claiming the success of the Truancy
Program to approximately sixty members of the Truancy Task Force. The UCSB
research specialist’s (who was hired with the truancy grant funding) report
failed to account for many of the students that had been enrolled in the
program. After the presentation, I asked
Mr. Sneddon, the UCSB Truancy Project Researcher, Superintendent Flores, and
the Probation Department manager if they had an accounting of those truant
students who had entered the program but were now missing and, therefore, not
mentioned in Mr. Sneddon's presentation. I questioned the Project Researcher
about students who have dropped out of school, gone into the
Because of my concern, I requested an accounting of students
in the following programs who were formerly students in the Truancy Program. I
asked to have the accounting include:
·
School
drop-outs: Many of these students’ parents have had to take drastic measures
such as having their child drop-out of school in order to get out of the
TP&PA Program.
·
Private
schools: Parent’s who placed their child in a private school, sometimes with
borrowed money, in order to remove them from the Truancy Program.
·
Independent
Study Program: Truant students who fled to the Independent Study Program where
they meet with a teacher for one hour a week.
·
·
Home
Schooling Program: Truant students who have gone into the Home Schooling
Program and no longer receive special education services.
·
Alternative
Schools: Truant students in alternative court school such as El Puente, La
Cuesta and La Costa.
·
Moved
from
·
Runaways:
Truant students who have run away from home because of the Truancy Program.
To date, there still has no response to my request of a
formal accounting from District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, the Truancy Project
Researcher or Superintendent Flores. No accounting has been made available to
the members of the Truancy Program Task Force or the members of the school
board, regarding these "missing" students. Yet, Mr. Sneddon, in an
article published in the Santa Barbara News Press on
Data Collection and Evaluation on
Truancy program
The original grant application, page ten, states, “We will
collect the necessary components as follows:
·
Student
attendance
·
Number
of Truancies
·
Number
of Suspensions and Expulsions
·
Subsequent
Arrests or Proceedings in Court