Bloomfield student case raises questions of safety, retaliation

BLOOMFIELD, Mo. — Education has changed dramatically in recent generations.

Teachers and administrators today face issues their predecessors did not, and families find themselves trying to navigate a system that doesn't always seem primed to help.

Some of these issues involve advances in inclusion, with the goal of leaving no child behind and helping every student achieve the highest level of academic and personal success possible.

Others focus on the more basic matter of safety and survival and, who is responsible for such.

One particular case from the Bloomfield public school system highlights the struggles families and school officials face in trying to balance those interests.

A fourth-grader with medical diagnoses that make children susceptible to impulsive outbursts, made verbal threats against his peers in the middle of a playground dodgeball incident. In that case, no weapon was mentioned or found. The child became angry, and said that he hated and wanted to kill the other students who told him he couldn't re-enter the game.

For those words, the district superintendent recommended a 90-day suspension from school.

Schools routinely address potential violence these days. Shooter drills for students. Intruder training for teachers. More officers in schools. Locked front doors and intercoms. Metal detectors. Schools are adapting to the violence seen in schools all over the country.

But when it comes to threats, what is the appropriate response? Each case comes with different circumstances. Was the threat credible? Was it done as a prank? How old is the student who is making the threat, and is he old enough to understand the consequences of his words? In the case of the boy from Bloomfield, his parents were shocked by the school's response. So much so, they hired a special education advocate to intervene.

The parents say not only was the 90-day recommended suspension much too harsh, but after they fought to reduce the suspension and ultimately pulled the boy from school, the school retaliated against their son. That alleged retaliation, the parents say, along with previous alleged violations in federal special education requirements, shows the district's negligence toward their son's special needs.

They're preparing to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.

This dodgeball playground incident from Nov. 2 has caused a community divide in Bloomfield, according to the child's parents. They say the response to the playground incident was too harsh. They say they're aware of students involved in fights that involved injuries that resulted in zero days of outside-of-school suspension. Their son has never hurt anyone.

In the weeks after the dodgeball incident, the boy's parents say false rumors, or at least innuendo, have been spread in the community that could follow their son for years to come.

The school district, which is prohibited by federal educational privacy law from speaking about any individual student, said generally it has a responsibility to keep the school safe, while also protecting the rights of individual students.

Superintendent Toni Hill provided written statements to the Southeast Missourian to several broad questions about policies and procedures. In addressing the balance of weighing rights and safety, Hill wrote, "Our district, like districts across the state and nation, continues to work to ensure that all students are supported, protected and receive quality educational services. At times, the school environment is disrupted by misconduct and inappropriate behaviors. We address these by following our policies and disciplinary scope and sequence, taking into consideration the individual needs of the students involved. We continue to learn from developing best practices around support and care of students, and we work to implement those best practices throughout the system."

Diagnosed with ADHD, DMDD

The 9-year-old boy, whose name the Southeast Missourian is withholding, has had some troubles. His parents, one a school counselor and the other a highway patrolman, began addressing behavioral and educational issues in the school when their son was in the second grade. They've actively sought help for their son, medically and educationally. They are fierce parents, the kind who work hard and are active in their children's lives. The parents have taken their son to see experts. He's been diagnosed with ADHD and Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. The child has problems regulating his emotions, especially in high-stimulation and stressful environments, sometimes erupting inappropriately for his age, according to his mother, Heather Brooks. He also has problems writing.

Making an IEP

Mandy Dean is a special education advocate. Her role is to work with parents to ensure their children's educational rights are respected. In a recent interview, Dean, a longtime former educator, spoke passionately as she explained processes and laws regarding students' rights.

Heather Brooks is a counselor in a nearby school district, so she understands firsthand how school districts typically handle problems with students. She said the family found out about her son's dodgeball incident hours after it happened. The school notified them he was being referred to the juvenile office and would not be able to return to the school until a threat assessment was completed by mental health professionals, a standard practice in such situations.

Two days after the incident, an assessment by Bootheel Counseling determined the boy was not a threat to himself or others. Five days after the incident, the family was told their son would receive a 10-day out-of-school suspension.

Eight days following the incident, the family was told the superintendent wanted to add another 80 days to the 10-day suspension, for a total of 90 days.

Special education students have certain rights under the federal IDEA — Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — which states its purpose is to require a "free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children."

The IDEA is the impetus requiring schools to address special education students' needs individually, crafting what are known as IEPs, or Individual Education Plans, meant to foster the educational growth of the student.

The IEP, Dean explained, evaluates a student's overall picture that includes academic evaluation and other areas such as adaptive behavior.

These plans are meant to more fully incorporate all students into an academic environment, rather than warehousing those with special needs apart from the rest of the student population.

While Brooks' son has had problems controlling his emotions, the IEP has almost exclusively focused on his struggles to write. Both Brooks and Dean said even with the writing portion of the IEP, the district has not adhered to the IEP, a violation of the IDEA. Some of the aspects of the IEP that would address both his writing and his emotions have been ignored or changed without telling the parents, Brooks and Dean said.

When asked generally about the amount of training district personnel have in terms of special education laws, superintendent Hill wrote, "The health and welfare of all students is of paramount importance to all. Our staff receives training related to management of student behaviors and available interventions and supports. In addition to any specific, individualized training that may be needed in a particular situation, the district provides regular learning opportunities for teachers, including training related to student behaviors and discipline."

While the boy's IEP provided plans and accommodations for writing, it didn't adequately address emotional and behavioral issues, Brooks said.

"He got two days (of suspension) because he wrote 'Chucky's coming for you' on his desk in second grade," Brooks explained. "When you ask him who Chucky is — because obviously, we don't allow our kids to watch that movie — his response is, 'Well, that's a creepy little guy that all the big kids dress up like on Halloween who has red hair and a striped shirt.' He thought it was a joke and got two days (of suspension) because that was a verbal threat on his own desk."

Brooks said her son was given a Behavior Intervention Plan. "He was supposed to check in with the district social worker every day, check in and check out, but to my knowledge that never took place, but I was told that was not working."

To her knowledge, her son has never been seen by the school counselor.

She said she thinks the school sees her son as a bad and lazy kid, not a child who is struggling with a disability.

10 days, then more recommended

Dean, the family's advocate, explained that an original 10-day suspension was dispensed by the school's principal. From there, the principal would send the original suspension to school superintendent Hill, who would have the final say. Dean said Hill wanted to suspend Brooks' child for 80 additional days above the 10-day suspension.

In order for that type of suspension to occur, the school district would have to make the argument that the incident was not a result of his disability.

When Heather Brooks received word her son was looking at 90 days out of school, she called Dean to help the family through the process.

The law states school personnel may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct for up to 10 days. But within those 10 days, members of the IEP team, including the parents, "shall review all relevant information in the student's file ... to determine: if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child's disability or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local educational agency's failure to implement the IEP."

The IEP group determined the dodgeball incident was, indeed, a manifestation of the student's disability. This step would trigger other interventions, including a behavioral assessment and another behavioral intervention plan.

The determination also prevented the extended 80-day suspension.

The IDEA discipline guidelines explain that a special education student can be suspended up to 45 days in extreme cases involving weapons, drugs or serious injuries. No one presented any such information in Brooks' son's case.

The IEP team ultimately determined Brooks' son could return to school.

The family didn't think it was best for him to return right away, however. They opted to keep their son home for a few weeks after the 10-day suspension ended, in what's called a home-bound arrangement, where schools provide special-needs services away from the normal school environment. The request was made by the family at the direction of their doctor, who wanted to adjust prescriptions for a few weeks in order to prepare for a complete psychological examination.

The family ultimately chose to home-school their child. They felt the school district had become an adversary rather than an advocate for their child. The couple's other child would continue to go to the public school, but they would no longer send their special needs son to Bloomfield Elementary.

The family now juggles home-school instruction along with full-time work schedules, and relies on grandparents to care for their 9-year-old while the parents work. School instruction is managed during evenings and weekends. Thus far, the fourth-grader is holding a grade-point average of 3.87, far better than he was faring in the Bloomfield School District. He rarely has outbursts in his home environment, Brooks said. She said her son understands he said bad things he shouldn't have said. He regrets saying them. She said he misses his friends and activities at school.

Can't attend events

After turning in their paperwork to withdraw their child, the Brooks' 9-year-old joined the family to watch his brother's Christmas program. The home-schooled fourth grader sat quietly next to his parents with no interruptions, Heather Brooks said. The next day, the family received communications from the superintendent that their home-schooled son was not allowed to attend events at the school.

"Your son ... is a homeschooled student at this time," the letter stated. "Therefore, he is not permitted to attend any school activities on our Bloomfield School District campus. This was stated on the homeschool form you were given. The fact that you did not sign an acknowledgment of this rule does not negate it. You attended the Bloomfield Elementary Christmas program last night and brought (your son) on campus. This letter serves as a reminder that (he) is not allowed to attend any school activities on our campus at this time. If (he) is brought to another school activity on our campus, you will be immediately asked to leave the premises."

This communication came as another shock to the family. It appeared to them the district was retaliating with punitive actions because they had hired an advocate and pushed back against the district.

Superintendent Hill denied that claim in an email to the family.

After the Brookses complained via email and in front of the school board, the district sent out a letter to all home-school parents to remind them of the policy.

In an email statement to the Southeast Missourian about the home-school policy, Hill wrote, "The district had an outdated form that stated that students who left the district could not come to the campus for events. This form has been updated and, when appropriate, former students may attend events that are open to the public."

Later, the district altered its policy to allow home-schooled students to attend events open to the general public, but not events open to just the student body. The changes were made following the encouragement of the district's attorney.

Rumors on social media

On Jan. 13, Heather Brooks expressed her frustrations on Facebook, to let out some steam and let others know how the district is treating their family. Her post was met with more than 100 comments expressing support for the family.

In other social media posts, a relative of a board member expressed a notion that she knows the whole truth and that the family is lucky the school can't share its side of the story, Brooks said. Brooks is aware of false rumors, but asked that they not be repeated in this article. She said the rumors amount to a "smear campaign against our child."

Brooks is not aware of any story that involves more than a verbal threat made over a dodgeball game. She's afraid rumors will stick with her child, and hinder his ability to make friends or be invited to social opportunities. She said she wonders whether officials within the school district are the source of some of the rumors.

For example, within two days after Brooks published a post about her experiences with the school district, Brad Warner, the president of the school board, shared posts about when to take child threats seriously, and 10 signs someone might be a serial killer. The posts did not mention Brooks' son by name, but she believes they were posted in response to her posts about the situation. The board member removed the post, then reposted the serial killer article again, explaining he was reposting the link in association with protective thoughts about his nieces attending college.

When asked whether the school district had any obligation to dispel rumors that may be targeting individual students, superintendent Hill wrote, "In keeping with the requirements of federal and state law, the district cannot share information about a specific student or a specific situation with which a student may have been involved. At times, this can be frustrating as the district cannot clarify inaccurate information or statements. We can, however, assure patrons that district policies and procedures are followed when addressing disciplinary events."