The Virginia Department of Ed Allegedly Accepts Coerced Statements From Parents In Sp Ed Violation Investigation
Thursday, June 29, 2006
By Kandise Thomas-Humphrey, PhD.

Prince George , VA. The question that is being asked by parents, educators, and community activists is why would the Virginia Department of Education's Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services knowingly accept statements from parents that were allegedly obtained through coercion and deception on the part of school administrators?

On March 27, 2006 , a complaint was filed with the VADOE alleging repeated instances of federal and state violations regarding students with special needs committed by Prince George County 's public school officials and administrators.

On May 26, 2006, the VADOE's Complaint Specialist, Henry J. Milward, Jr. issued a letter of findings that found no evidence of noncompliance by Prince George County Public School officials. The letter also confirmed that the VADOE accepted the allegedly coerced complaint withdrawal statements from the parents of the students involved. The findings stated that the students were excluded from the investigation based on the signed complaint withdrawal forms submitted by Prince George County Public School officials.

Prior to issuing the decision, Mr. Milward and Jonell Lilly, the Coordinator of Complaints Services, were notified via phone and email that several parents had been coerced and deceived into signing a complaint withdrawal form by school administrators. A copy of the pre-typed, fill in the blank form was faxed to Ms. Lilly's attention for review and follow up. The form that was presented to the parents required that they fill in their child's first name and sign the form. An additional email from a parent that characterized Prince George County 's administrator as attempting to "bully" her into signing the form was also forwarded to Ms. Lilly and Mr. Milward. Despite this, the Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services staff accepted the forms without question.

The alleged acts of coercion and deception involved an administrator going out to a single parent's home, during school hours, in order to force her into signing the complaint withdrawal form. When she refused to sign the form after two visits, within the same day by the administrator, the Director of Special Education for the county allegedly contacted the parent via phone, in order to intimidate her further into signing the form. She refused all acts of coercion and did not sign the form.

In another reported instance, parents have confirmed that the administrator advised them that the complaint that was filed with the VADOE was filed directly against their child, not against the school district. Several parents indicated that they were confused and in fear of retaliation for themselves and their students in the event that they refused to sign the withdrawal form. As a result, they complied with the administrator's request in order to avoid detrimental outcomes for their students.

Dr. Judith A. Douglas, Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services, was also notified of the allegations, via email, surrounding the coerced statements from parents withdrawing the complaint as it related to their students.

The matter was escalated to the appeal process and in a letter dated June 23, 2006 , Cecil H. Creasey, Jr., the Complaint Appeal Reviewer that was hired by the VADOE, reaffirmed the VADOE's initial findings and decision to accept the coerced withdrawal forms from the parents involved in the investigation. However, in his correspondence, Mr. Creasey states, ".the VADOE has the delegated authority to exercise its discretion in the manner in which it conducts its complaint investigations. The complaint appeal system cannot overrule or substitute another's judgement for the discretionary actions of VADOE in its investigation of complaints."

Creasey goes on to state, ".the agency (VADOE) has been entrusted with wide discretion by the General Assembly. VADOE has been entrusted with wide discretion by the General Assembly to administer special education programs and the administrative complaint system. Va. Code 22.1-214"

The question as to why the VADOE did not exercise the level of wide discretion that is granted to them by the General Assembly in this instance is unclear. As one community activist stated, "What message is the VADOE sending to other parents and educators that advocate for compliance in the educational services that are provided to our children with special needs? Based on the findings of this case, they (VADOE) are condoning the use of coercion and deception by administrators and school officials in order to discourage complaints and obstruct investigations by state agencies. How can that benefit our children?"

As one educator shared, "Coerced statements or confessions made under duress or for fear of retaliation are illegal and inadmissible in most courtrooms. Why the VADOE considered them valid is an injustice that our children with special needs and their families will be forced to pay for. It is really sad because the VADOE is suppose to protect and stand up for the rights of our children with special needs and their families, not make it easier to violate their rights. If the VADOE does not hold these administrators accountable for their actions, who will?"

The challenges regarding VADOE's method of investigating issues regarding students with disabilities has been an issue of grave concern for over a decade. On September 29, 1995 , the VADOE was reviewed by the US Department of Education regarding its administrative complaint process as it pertains to students with special needs. The DOE stated, ".our review revealed problems in the effectiveness of VADOE's monitoring and complaint management procedures." The DOE required the VADOE to take the necessary corrective actions regarding the matter and continues to monitor the VADOE.

The parties involved in this matter are securing the support of several civil rights groups, government officials, special education organizations, parent advocacy groups, and community activists in order to address the actions of the administrators within Prince George County Public Schools and the VADOE.

Kandise Thomas-Humphrey, PhD.is a child family advocate, special educator, educational consultant, and reformist. 

Post your comments