• Testimony of Kim Y. Jones
  Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc.
  
  Testimony of Ms. Kim Y. Jones, Esq.
  Executive Director & Founder
  Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc.
  D.C. Parent Training and Information Center and the
  Parent Center for the District of Columbia
  Chairman Gray and the Committee of the Whole. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to come before you today. My name is Kim Y. Jones, Executive Director and Founder of Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc.
  
  I will not take this s opportunity today to speak to you about our organization and our work, nor will I spend my time spouting statistics of our achievements. Those are not particularly important in the context of this hearing. I do believe that there will be a few parents today that will speak to you about their experiences within the special education system. My testimony is focused on larger systemic concerns that we believe need to be addressed immediately by this body.
  
  This testimony focuses on three distinct areas that require your attention and some legislative action:
  
  • The Office of the State Superintendent’s Enforcement Authority
  • Charter School Compliance -- Special Education & School Discipline
  • The Role of the Ombudsman’s Office -- Dispute Resolution
  • Blackmon/Jones D.C. Public Schools
  
  AJE is the federally designated Parent Training and Information Center for the District of Columbia. We were also selected by the District of Columbia to serve as the city-wide Parent Center under the Blackmon/Jones settlement agreement. As the Parent Center for the District of Columbia we are tasked with serving and supporting all families and all students, specifically -- though not exclusively -- with special education needs.
  
  The Office of the State Superintendent
  It is my position that the Office of the State Superintendent does not have sufficient enforcement authority to carry out its mandate, especially as it relates to the public charter schools.
  
  This body of government serves in important yet understated role in the District’s school reform efforts and its inability to enforce the laws of the District of Columbia inhibits its ability to effectively contribute to that effort. You as a council have to make a difficult decision. The OSSE’s ability to force compliance on schools will create a political backlash, especially in the charter school movement, but it is necessary especially as it relates to serving children with special education needs and those yet to be identified.
  
  This body needs to provide the OSSE with the authority to regulate and govern schools operating within the bounds of the District of Columba that receive funds from the District of Columbia or federal pass through dollars, much like the federal government requires.
  
  The greatest challenge we see is the OSSE’s ability to enforce state requirements of due process when disputes arise between parents, students, and the schools. This city has waited to long for the charter school board and its members to develop a self-regulating standard. That board has no authority to force compliance on any of the schools when it is clear that they are out of compliance with the law. This practice must cease and this body needs to act with force to better serve children in this city.
  
  Charter Schools – Special Education and School Discipline
  The District of Columbia’s Charter school system is fragmented and needs consistent standards for students receiving special education services and students suspected of having a disability. There are several schools that are doing a really good job serving children and I don’t want to take away from their achievements. However, the challenge is that schools are not consistent in their practice and following the due process requirements as mandated by IDEIA.
  
  Disciplinary procedures in particularly are all over the map there is no formal appellate process that is consistent for all schools. When disciplining a child with a disability or suspected of having a disability the law is most often disregarded. There is a disturbing trend in the charter schools emerging, particularly the suspensions and expulsions of children below the age of 6. D.C. Bilingual Public Charter School at Centro Nia is particularly notorious. We currently have three students in the kindergarten that had proposed expulsions or suspensions for 25 days or more. We have a five year old client at SAIL Public Charter school that had a proposed expulsion and the school is still trying to kick the student out despite the fact that all agree that the placement is inappropriate and he will be attending a new school in two weeks.The desire for autonomy is admirable and is one to be respected, but there comes a time when autonomy can turn into tyranny. This trend on the part of some of our charter school partners is not one to be admired.
  
  We as a city must commit to a common belief and value system. If we commit to the value that there are no throw away children -- I believe that this body will be able to make the hard decisions. This body needs to impose a system of due process on the Charter schools that is equitable and fair to the students and their parents. There needs to be an appellate system in place like the one that exist for DCPS for Charter school decisions in special education matters and school disciplinary proceedings .
  

The Ombudsman Office
The role of an ombudsman is one of neutrality and has generally been to investigate citizen complaints against the government officials. They generally have wide investigative powers, yet very little enforcement authority. It is the role of the ombudsman to listen, inform, and make recommendations for resolution of a conflict. The Ombudsman can and does often influence the resolution of a matter.

The District of Columbia’s formation of an Education Ombudsman is laughable given the resources that have been committed to supporting it. This office needs to be staffed with individuals with the technical expertise in the areas of education, special education, and an understanding of the District’s regulation over its educational institutions. This office is woefully understaffed and underfunded and has too often in my opinion overstepped its bounds as an investigative body, in many cases to the detriment of the parents they serve. The ombudsman’s office should not attend a school meeting with a parent as their advocate. They should be a participant in the meeting but not representing the interests of the family. This is particularly important when it comes to students with disabilities or suspected of having a disability. The ombudsman is not an advocate. They do not take sides or advocate one position or the next.

I believe that training, additional funding to support staffing positions, and effective mentoring by local education agencies may help in this effort.

The District of Columbia Public Schools -- Blackmon/Jones
The District of Columbia Public Schools needs an exit strategy. The Blackmon/Jones case has the potential of extending far into this millennium and probably into the next. I attended a meeting on this matter and expressed my frustration about the fact that the there seems to be no plan for exiting out of this litigation.

Class actions are meant to solve problems and we need to do just that. The District of Columbia should focus not only on getting into compliance, but also how to create a system that is accountable and capable of coming out of this expensive litigation, while insuring that protections are in place to maintain compliance.

The District of Columbia Public Schools has made great strides in its ability to support students with special education needs. However, attempts to support students with special education needs has to focus more on supporting the students with have within our bounds and less on trying to bring children back from private placements. This body needs to focus less on that expense and more on why students ended up in that placement in the first place. The longer we continue have a system that is focused on the litigation and its compliance we will not be able to actually reform this system. Reform for the sake of reform does not move us forward. I believe that the Chancellor’s efforts and those of Dr. Nyankori are efforts in the right direction, but we need to move into a system that is focused on true reform and not as much on compliance with litigation.