VT HSER UPDATE Here’s
VT HSER UPDATE Here’s some more info on Patricia O’Dell (from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VT-homeschooling/message/458) Apparently Mrs. O’Dell’s “crime” was not wanting her kids in special ed. I have yet to confirm the seizing of her kids, but everything seems to check out so far. Mrs. O’Dell and her family no longer reside in VT; I really don’t understand how the VT DOE can claim any kind of jurisdiction.
October 5, 2001
Dear Mr. & Mrs. O’Dell:
I am writing to inform you that I am calling a hearing, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. Section 166b (e), on the grounds that I have information that creates a significant doubt about whether you home study program can provide a minimum course of study for Andrew Veach, Samantha Thompson, Angela Cameron and Elizabeth Veach. The specific grounds for calling this hearing are set forth below.
You have not included any adaptations in your curricula for any of the children to address their handicapping conditions. 16 V.S.A. Section 166b (a) (5) requires that the curriculum submitted for each child include a description of the services and adaptations made to accommodate any handicapping condition. 16 V.S.A. Section166b (i) requires that the educational content in each area of the minimum course of study is adapted to the age and ability of the child and any handicapping conditions of the child. This is especially important because of the following:
In 1998 Andrew was evaluated for special education services and was diagnosed as learning impaired. During the 1999-2000 school year, Andrew was observed by his public school teachers to be significantly delayed in all academic areas.
In 1998, Angela was evaluated for special education services and was diagnosed as learning impaired. She was also diagnosed as having a speech and language impairment. During the 1999-2000 school year, Angela was observed by her public school teachers to be significantly delayed in all academic areas. In addition she demonstrated poor language skills and major articulation problems which made her speech difficult to understand.
Although you refused to allow Samantha to be evaluated for special education services, during the 1999-2000 school year her public school teachers observed her to be significantly delayed in both language arts and math.
The independent professional evidence form that you submitted for Elizabeth last year, which is dated September 18, 2000 and signed by a physician, indicated that Elizabeth had speech/language difficulties and could benefit from an indepth evaluation. Although you informed Department of Education Consultant, Marcy Fox, that you had arranged for such an evaluation and would send her the results you never provided this information.
Last year the Department called a hearing, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. Section 166b (f) to terminate the home study enrollment for Andrew, Samantha, Angela and Elizabeth. The hearing was withdrawn as part of a settlement agreement in which you agreed:
a.) to the performance of a progress assessment in all areas of the minimum course of study for each child by a licensed Vermont teacher or a teacher from an approved Vermont independent school who had experience in working with children with disabilities;
b.) that, to the extent possible, the assessment would be performed at the location where instruction is, or has been provided and;
c.) that only Mrs. O’Dell and the children would participate in the assessment. There would be no media or other person present, unless mutually agreed upon by the Department and Mrs. O’Dell.
Your enrollment for this year did not include a progress assessment that conformed to the terms of this settlement agreement. Your progress assessment is a parent report rather than a report by a teacher experienced in working with children with disabilities. Further, this parent report does not address the children’s progress in each area of the minimum course of study. Therefore, in addition to not conforming to the terms of the settlement agreement, your progress assessments do not meet the requirements of 16 V.S.A. Section 166b (d).
Patricia O’Dell is listed as the sole instructor for the home study program. During the years that your children attended public school, public school staff observed that Mrs. O’Dell was limited in her own abilities to read and write. In addition, the home study curricula that Mrs. O’Dell submitted for the 2000-2001 school year were replete with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Accordingly, I have a significant doubt as to your ability to provide instruction in a minimum course of study, as defined in 16 V.S.A. Section 906.
16 V.S.A. Section 166b (i) and 16 V.S.A. Section 906 require that the minimum course of study be adapted to the student’s age and ability. The curricula that you submitted for Andrew, age 14 and Samantha, age 13 are virtually identical.
I have appointed Bruce Bjornlund as the hearing officer in this matter. He will be in touch with you to schedule the hearing. You may request that the hearing be held in the location where you reside.
Please be advised that, pursuant to 16 V.S.A. Section 166b (g), your children will not be enrolled in home study unless and until a hearing officer issues an order to this effect.
Respectfully yours,
David S. Wolk
Commissioner of EducationCC: Bruce Bjornlund, Hearing Officer
Natalie Casco, Home Study Consultant
Barbara Crippen, Legal Counsel