By Mindy Ragan Wood
Staff Writer
A parent who filed a civil rights complaint against the school district two years ago faces an uphill battle if the case is to be heard in court.
Melanie Berry filed two complaints in 2016 with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) division after her son was denied special education support by the district.
Berry’s son was diagnosed with ADHD and she requested that several supports be implemented for his education.
The district did not agree with the diagnosis or the need for intervention for the student.
During the Piedmont Board of Education meeting Monday night Superintendent James White announced the results of the agency’s investigation.
“Allegation one, OCR investigated whether the student was not eligible for special education under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990,” White said. “Conclusion, OCR found that a preponderance of the evidence established the district conducted an evaluation of the student and determined the student did not meet the definition of an individual with a disability for the purposes of section 504.”
OCR stated that the district followed the necessary procedures to evaluate the student’s need.
The second complaint Berry filed was after she was terminated as a substitute teacher with the district following her first complaint with OCR. That complaint was also found to be invalid.
“OCR determined the parent used social media during instructional time and made unprofessional remarks,” White read out loud from the letter. “OCR determined the actions for which the employee was terminated were legitimate and therefore the district had no retaliatory reasons for terminating employment. OCR was unable to conclude that removing the parent from the substitute position was a pretext for retaliation.”
OCR closed both complaints, but it’s not the end of the district’s problems with civil rights complaints. A second complaint, filed by a different parent, remains under investigation.
“The other one we haven’t heard from them,” White said. “We are in our second to third year on that one as well and might be coming to a conclusion at some point. We’re probably a year and half to two years on that as well.”
The investigation into the complaint was completed last September, but White said the OCR official “forgot” to send the district the letter.
Berry said she received notification from OCR a couple of weeks ago.
“Obviously I’m not happy with the decision but I have to live with it,” Berry said. “The investigation went on way longer than it ever should have for the type of complaint it was.
The investigator retired the minute it was finalized, then never reported to either party. It is what it is, but I am not deterred from getting my son what the school is required to provide.”
Berry disagreed with OCR on the point that her son received a proper evaluation.
“As for the decision stating the school provided my son an ‘evaluation’ I would say that a couple vague inquiries from a teacher that had my son in class for 17 days does not constitute a proper evaluation. Especially since we had a full psychological evaluation from OU Children’s conducted by a licensed psychologist as opposed to the then-director of special education, Lynda White, who I believe is a speech pathologist.
“In no way has this decision deterred me from continuing to advocate personally or professionally on behalf of all students with disabilities or behavior needs,” she said. “It has actually been a great lesson in advocacy that will only help me in the future. Luckily for my son I won’t let him fail even if the school system (in parts) tries.”
