DREW BALAGUER, REINA ROBERTS, and MARK BALAGUER v. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
(1) THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 ET SEQ.
(2) SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 ET SEQ.;
(3) THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 ET SEQ.
See Complaint here: document-142
See Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Further Responses here: document-143
“Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order (3) compelling (a) Dr. Woolverton to respond to questions raised about documents produced by the Defendant which she previously refused to (upon the advice of counsel) to answer of the grounds that such questions sought information protected by attorney-client privilege; and (b) Ms. Keleher to respond to similar questions which she also refused to answer upon the advice of counsel
See Notice of Settlement here: document-141
OVERVIEW
Under the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education, California has developed three tiers of public post-secondary education leading to a college degree: a two-year community college system, a four-year California State University (“CSU”) system, and a four-year University of California (“UC”) system. Students may earn degrees in any of these tiers, but there are significant differences between the four-year UC and CSU institutions and the community college system.
Only students who complete college and obtain a four-year degree reap the substantial economic benefits of a college education.
Students who enroll in community colleges are also much less likely to graduate than students in four-year programs: according to the National Center for Education Statistics, 45% of community college students leave school before they obtain their degree or certificate, a dropout rate nearly three times that of students in four-year institutions.
The public perception that students frequently transfer between community colleges and the UC/CSU system is belied by data showing that such transfers are relatively rare.4 Even for students who successfully transfer from community college to a four-year campus, the graduation rate among transfer students is “significantly lower” than for students who begin their post-secondary education at a four-year college. And even community college transfers who succeed in obtaining degrees at public four-year institutions generally take at least two years longer to do so.
Only 44% of these students receive their bachelor’s degree within six years. This average two-year delay both increases the tuition costs of obtaining the degree and eliminates two years of wage earning potential.
Aside from the economic benefits that redound to four-year degree holders, there are qualitative differences in the educational experiences provided by community colleges and public four-year institutions. For example, faculty at community colleges are less likely to engage in scholarly publications and research.
Students at two-year colleges will have fewer (if any) opportunities to participate in research projects and scholarship. The lack of this experience places these students at a disadvantage when entering the job market for entire fields of study.
California’s four-year postsecondary systems have more rigorous admissions requirements than community colleges. The primary difference is that the four-year UC/CSU system requires all applicants to have completed high school coursework that meets certain baseline academic standards. High schools must submit the curricula for their courses to ensure that it meets these minimum academic standards.8 Classes that do are known in California as offering “a-g credit.” High school graduates who earned “a-g credits” are eligible to apply and be admitted to a college in the UC/CSU system.
A student who lacks “a-g credits” cannot apply to the UC/CSU system and must attend a community college.
The District freely acknowledges the differences between the three tiers of post-secondary educational placements, and advertises its commitment “to graduate students with the most post-secondary options available to them.”
The class graduated by the District in 2010 sent 589 Santa Monica Malibu High School (“SAMOHI”) students to college.
Of those 589 college-bound students, 89 went to a CSU campus and 108 went to a UC campus. Combined, roughly one-third of the 2010 graduating class from SAMOHI matriculated directly into the UC/CSU system.
Due to the way the District educates students with disabilities at SAMOHI, however, it was impossible for D to be among them.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has created a two-track educational system at SAMOHI, which excludes many students with a disability from completing courses offering a-g credit.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District requires disabled students like D, whose disabilities prevent them from receiving instruction in general-education classrooms, to take special education courses designated “SAI classes.” SAI classes do not offer a-g credits—even though D and students like her are academically capable of a-g level work.
The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District thus precludes them as a matter of policy from matriculating directly to a four-year UC/CSU program.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has refused to submit the curriculum for any of the courses designated as SAI classes for a-g credit approval.
In contrast, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has applied for and obtained approval for more than 150 of its general education courses to award a-g credit.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s actions violated the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. When the District refused to offer Drew an appropriate educational program, her family was forced to identify and enroll her in an appropriate educational setting at their own expense, and to seek reimbursement from the District for the costs they incurred.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s actions also violated the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA when it retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their rights under these statutes.
When the Plaintiffs rejected educational placements offered by the District at Ds IEP meetings, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District unilaterally disenrolled her and refused to provide related services to which she was entitled.
Below is how the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District treats some of its Special Education families.
See link to Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Disrict’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by filing false claims of child abuse with the Department of Children and Family Services:
http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/
SMMUSD vs. Student
By Debra Shepherd
Good evening Council members. I am the parent of a child in general education and a child who requires special education services. I am also a member of the Working Group.
Although the non-disclosure agreements are no longer being used to my knowledge, the environment that brought about the use of those agreements still exists.
When a problem arises, there does not seem to be an ability to resolve the problem without input from the attorneys. Since November of 2008, the District has been more adversarial toward my family by threatening me with due process litigation at tax payers’ expense. The SMMUSD refuses to even acknowledge that my daughter has an autism spectrum disorder despite multiple pages of detailed assessments from UCLA in a school setting that have been a part of my child’s records for the last 4 years.
The District is also attempting to take needed services and accommodations out of my child’s educational program. I had to fight for two years for my daughter to receive occupational therapy services.
My extended family has also traveled thousands of miles to help me with these issues. The SMMUSD would rather spend thousands of tax payer dollars suing me than pay for a needed assessment for my child or provide her with a free and appropriate education as mandated by law.
I thought that we had reached our lowest point in the journey when school staff filed a false report against me with child services in retaliation against me for hiring an attorney. My youngest child is still not recovered from the trauma of that incident. I am also disturbed by the number of families of color that have left the district. When families of color complain about how they are treated by the district, their address is verified. This whole situation has taken a toll on my health and the well-being of my family.
See links to other litigation relating to additional SMMUSD Retaliatory Acts:
Parent vs. Wendy Wax Gellis and the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
This lawsuit alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police.
Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services.
See link to News Article here: http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/
The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.
For details of this pending Federal lawsuit go to:
The SMMUSD’s Adversarial Posturing is Costing the SMMUSD Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and Causing Unnecessary Harm to All of These Families.
smmusdirresponsibilityendangersourchildren 