Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMMA C. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELAINE EASTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C96-4179 TEH

ORDER RE: DIRECTIVES AND

CDE TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE, OVERSIGHT,

AND MONITORING 

REGARDING RAVENSWOOD'S

DELIVERY OF SERVICES AND

RELATED ISSUES 

In response to continuing problems with the District’s staffing and delivery of IEP

services, the Court ordered the parties to make proposals for increasing the CDE’s role in the

District as a means of ensuring appropriate service delivery, oversight and monitoring.

Specifically, the Court asked the parties to address what assistance, direction, support, and

oversight Defendant CDE could or should provide to the District with respect to: 

1) recruitment of qualified staff or contractors for all unfilled District special

education, related services, administrative, and IEP Coordinator positions; 

2) collection of full and accurate information regarding the services that have not been

fully and/or effectively delivered to students; 

3) recruitment of adequate numbers of staff and/or contractors to deliver

compensatory services to students in a timely manner; and 

4) development and implementation of effective methods of supervision and oversight

sufficient to ensure full and effective implementation of IEPs. 

The parties presented proposals in their status conference statements and at the status

conference held November 29, 2007. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions,

the Court hereby ORDERS further involvement by the CDE, as set out below. 

//

//

//

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. CDE’s Responsibilities and The Court’s Authority To Order Its Increased

Involvement

The First Amended Consent Decree, filed April 3, 2003 (“Consent Decree”) in this

action provides:

CDE is responsible under federal and state law to ensure that children with disabilities

who reside in Ravenswood have a free appropriate public education provided to them

in the least restrictive environment. As part of this responsibility, CDE shall

implement an effective monitoring system . . . . CDE shall ensure Ravenswood’s

performance of all its obligations under this Decree.

Id. ¶ 4.1. A CDE liaison must be available to facilitate implementation of CDE’s obligations

under the Decree. Id. ¶ 4.2. 

Moreover, both state and federal law hold the state educational agency (“SEA”)

ultimately responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (“IDEA”) are fulfilled. 20 U.S.C. § 1412, 1413; 34 C.F.R. § 300.149(a)(1);

Cal. Gov. Code § 7561 (“single line of responsibility”). The IDEA contemplates that if the

local educational agency (“LEA”) is unable to establish and maintain programs of free

appropriate education that meet IDEA requirements, the SEA shall provide “special

education and related services directly to children with disabilities,” using payments that

otherwise would have been available to the LEA or a state agency to do so. 20 C.F.R. §

1314(g)(1) and (g)(1)(b); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.227 (state providing services); 300.175

(procedural requirements). It can provide those services directly, by contract, or through

other arrangements. 34 C.F.R. § 300.227(a)(2)(I). The IDEA also imposes monitoring and

technical assistance requirements. See, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 (monitoring

responsibilities); 34 C.F.R. § 300.119(b)(technical assistance and training to local agencies).

Accordingly, both the SEA and/or the LEA may be held liable for a failure to provide

a free appropriate public education. Gadsby by Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940, 955 (4th

Cir. 1997); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) (court may “grant such relief as [it] determines is

appropriate”). Courts have ordered state agencies to take on increased responsibilities to

rectify systemic violations of the IDEA. See, e.g., Vaughn G. v. Mayor and City Council of

Baltimore, 2005 WL 1949688 (D. Md. August 12, 2005)(in response to breakdown in IEP

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

services, adopting a plan that allows state personnel to manage and direct local agency

personnel in delivering services). Moreover, the Court has inherent authority to enforce its

own orders. Buono v. Kempthorne, 502 F.3d 1069, 1081 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007); Vaughn G.,

2005 WL 1949688 *8 (D. Md. August 12, 2005). 

II. Ravenswood District’s Inability To Provide IEP Services

Problems with the District’s delivery of IEP services are longstanding. The four

years’ worth of data in the Court Monitor’s RSIP Compliance Trends Report, 2003-2007,

show increasing noncompliance with RSIP requirements relating to IEP service delivery. 

See §§ 12.1.3, 12.3.1. As early as November, 2006, Plaintiffs raised concerns about the

District’s provision of services, which the Court noted at the November 15, 2006 status

conference. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the recommendations in

the Court Monitor’s October, 2006 Trends Report. In January, 2007, the parties stipulated to

adopt the bulk of the Court Monitor’s recommendations.

In April, 2007, the District set out in a memorandum the steps it would take to ensure

service delivery. Nevertheless, Court Monitor’s February-April 2007 RSIP Quarterly

Review Report showed a decrease in compliance in IEP service delivery. Accordingly, in an

Order dated June 29, 2007, the Court ordered the District to revisit the steps it had outlined

and to set forth in writing updated measures it would use to resolve unacceptable backsliding

in service delivery. The District responded with memoranda on July 24, 2007, and, after

feedback from the Court Monitor, on October 11, 2007.

The Court Monitor’s latest Quarterly Report shows that compliance has continued to

decline “precipitously.” Of those student files reviewed, 50.8% reflected failure to deliver all

required IEP services. Service delivery could not be determined for 18% of students

because time logs were missing or incomplete. December 11, 2007 Quarterly Report,

December 11, 2007, § 12.1.3 p. 42; see also id. § 12.3.1, p. 44 (40.8% of records sampled

show students received specialized instruction, adaptations, supports and modifications

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

specified by their IEPs). Evidence of the District’s repeated failure to comply with the RSIP

requirements and provide adequate services is incontrovertible.

Moreover, various reports and updates to the Court, most recently on December 17,

2007, show that the District has not achieved a level of staffing for the '07-'08 school year

that will produce full delivery of special education and related services to the Plaintiffs; in

addition, the District has lost oversight and technical assistance staff to resignations. The

Court has no reason to believe that the District is capable of righting its ship on its own in the

near future. 

III. Ensuring Delivery of IEP and Compensatory Services

A. Directives

The Court is convinced that the Court Monitor should have the same authority to issue

Directives that he had under the RCAP in order to speed the process of ensuring the District

can provide services to students with disabilities. The Court Monitor shall have authority to

issue Directives to either or both Defendants on matters necessary to bring about compliance

with RSIP requirements. The Monitor shall issue any such Directives in writing, and shall

provide copies to the other Parties and the Court. The Defendant subject to a Directive from

the Monitor shall have seven days to perform, or state its commitment to perform, the

activities identified in the Directive. In the event that the affected Defendant disagrees with

the Directive, that Defendant shall seek relief from the Directive within 14 calendar days of

the day it notifies the Monitor of its refusal to comply with a Directive. It will do so by filing

with the Court and serving on all Parties a memorandum or brief showing cause why the

Court should not issue an Order enforcing the Directive. If the Defendant subject to a

Directive agrees to implement a Directive, and then does not do so or does not do so

effectively, the Monitor shall notify the Parties, and may, at his discretion, seek an Order

from the Court to enforce the Directive.

The Court hopes that this grant of authority to the Monitor will be temporary. After

the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Court will entertain motions from either or both

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court recognizes that the CDE believes the San Mateo SELPA and County Office of

Education (COE) may have expertise that will prove helpful in completing the tasks below. 

However, the SELPA and COE are not parties to this case, and the Court therefore cannot order

relief against them. CDE is free to require (or contract for) their involvement under its own

auspices, where appropriate, to comply with the remedy ordered below.

5

Defendants to end the Monitor’s Directive authority. The Court will do so if Defendants

have made significant progress toward compliance, and if the Court is assured that the

District is well positioned for the 2008-09 school year to implement the RSIP effectively and

deliver all IEP services to students fully, competently, and effectively.

B. CDE Responsibilities, Supervision, and Assistance

1. Staffing Analysis1

Using the IEPs of students rather than the District database (as the RSIP does not

currently contain an effective measure of database accuracy), CDE shall determine the

appropriate staffing level for special education and related services providers (teachers,

occupational therapists, speech therapists, psychologists, paraprofessionals, social workers,

etc.) in the District. In calculating the number of staff needed, CDE should allow adequate

time for staff attendance at IEP meetings, parent-teacher conferences, planning time,

collaboration with general educators, other case management activities, travel time (for staff

who serve students at more than one school site) and staff meetings. By analyzing staff

absences, CDE shall also determine the number of “floater” substitutes necessary to ensure

uninterrupted service delivery during staff absences and the delivery of compensatory

education when staff are not absent.

The results of this analysis shall be communicated to the Court Monitor and the

Parties by memorandum no later than January 28, 2008. The District (and the Plaintiffs, if

they so desire) shall have one week to respond, also by memorandum to the Monitor and

Parties. If any party believes that the CDE’s analysis or recommendations are flawed in

some way, that party shall clearly explain why in its memorandum to the Monitor. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

If the Parties disagree on appropriate staffing levels, the Court Monitor shall issue a

Directive, as set out in section III.A supra. Any party aggrieved by the Directive may seek

relief from the Court as set out above. 

2. Determining Service Deprivations

Using staff timelogs, interviews, and any other means deemed appropriate and

necessary to result in an accurate calculation, and based again on the IEPs of students, CDE

shall determine the amount of service deprivation—including special education instruction,

indirect services, and related services—suffered by each Ravenswood student from the

beginning of the 2007-08 school year through December 31, 2007. 

As part of this analysis CDE shall determine the extent to which services delivered by

general education substitute teachers who were filling special education positions

temporarily were delivered fully, competently, and effectively. CDE should use interviews

of principals and general education teachers as part of the methodology for this portion of the

analysis. Before proceeding with this task, CDE should seek the position of the District and

Plaintiffs on this issue.

By February 15, 2007, CDE shall submit a list of all Ravenswood students who were

deprived of services and the amount of services missed for each to the Court Monitor and the

Parties.

3. Compensatory Services

After determining the service deprivations for each student, CDE shall adjust the list

for all service deprivations already captured by the District's self-monitoring efforts or the

Court Monitor's findings on this subject. CDE shall then determine the extent to which

current District service providers can, in addition to their regular service delivery

responsibilities, deliver the necessary compensatory services to students in a timely manner

(if at all). CDE shall then contract with a sufficient number of providers to ensure the timely

delivery of compensatory education to the affected students.

The District, with supervision and oversight from CDE, shall notify parents of each

student with an offer of compensatory education, in accordance with the compensatory

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

education provisions of the RSIP. The District's current system of tracking compensatory

education eligibility and provision shall be used for the purpose of tracking. CDE shall then

ensure the timely, full and competent delivery of the compensatory services.

4. Effective Methods of Supervision and Oversight: Service Delivery

Effective January 7, 2008, and in addition to the staff/contractors necessary to comply

with other provisions of this Order, CDE shall place three of its staff or contractors in the

District to function as IEP Coordinators. They will be responsible for ensuring compliance

with the RSIP IEP requirements at IEP meetings, providing technical assistance, and

oversight of service delivery. These individuals shall report to a CDE staff member

identified for this purpose, as well as to the Ravenswood Assistant Superintendent of Special

Education. These CDE staff or contractors shall have the authority to make

recommendations to District IEP teams and administrators regarding compliance, service

delivery and any other matters deemed appropriate by CDE. The District shall not be bound

by these recommendations, but CDE should report to the Monitor on a regular basis any

recommendations on these matters not implemented by the District, or not implemented

effectively.

For each IEP Coordinator hired by the District after the date of this Order, CDE may

reduce by one the number of these individuals assigned to the District.

Furthermore, CDE shall use its presence in the District to assist the District in

developing methods of supervision and oversight sufficient to ensure full and effective

service delivery for the 2008-09 school year. By May 31, 2008, the Defendants shall inform

the Court Monitor and Plaintiffs of these methods in writing and, if the Defendants disagree

on this issue, shall separately inform the Monitor and Plaintiffs of their respective proposed

methods. In the event the Parties disagree, the Monitor will make recommendations, attempt

to mediate between the Defendants, or issue a Directive, at his discretion.

5. Human Resources: Recruitment/ Retention

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

CDE shall share with the District the resumes of any candidates who were not hired

by CDE for CDE staff positions and may be appropriate candidates for District IEP

Coordinator positions.

In addition, CDE shall appoint an individual with appropriate experience and

expertise to provide technical assistance and oversight to the Ravenswood Human Resources

office on recruitment and retention issues for the remainder of the 2007-08 school year. 

CDE shall make recommendations to the District related to recruitment and retention,

including incentives for recruitment and retention to the extent that CDE believes those are

necessary, and shall inform the Court Monitor and Plaintiffs of any recommendations not

implemented or not implemented effectively by Ravenswood. If the District fails to

implement the CDE’s recommendations on recruitment and retention, the Monitor will make

recommendations, attempt to mediate between the Defendants, or issue a Directive, at his

discretion.

6. Funding

CDE shall assist the District in applying for any available discretionary funding

relevant to special education or students at risk of referral to special education, and shall

assist the District in identifying any other potential funding sources that may be available.

C. Costs

Defendants shall meet and confer regarding the costs of implementation of this Order. 

If the Defendants wish, the Court Monitor will be available to assist in this process. In their

discussions the Defendants shall be guided by the following principles:

1) to the extent that this Order requires CDE to provide a service for which

Ravenswood is currently funded through the RSIP budget, such funds shall revert to

CDE;

2) for services not covered by the RSIP budget and for which Ravenswood does not

currently receive funding from other sources, additional costs shall be allocated

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

between the Defendants in accordance with the current allocation agreement for the

2007-08 school year (45% CDE, 55% Ravenswood); and

3) for services not covered by the RSIP budget and for which Ravenswood does

receive funding from state and federal sources, and for which CDE will now be

responsible, such funds shall revert to CDE.

In the event that the Parties are unable to reach agreement about the allocation of

costs, they shall submit a joint report outlining areas of disagreement and their respective

rationales to the Court Monitor by February 29, 2008. The Court Monitor shall then make a

recommendation to the Court by March 14, 2008.

IV. Conclusion

It is the hope of this Court that the steps ordered above will be temporary, and will not

be necessary by the start of the '08-'09 school year, and that this Order will allow the District

the breathing space necessary to focus on RSIP implementation and service delivery going

forward. But, after many years of litigation, the Court cannot countenance continued service

deprivations of this scope, nor will it allow another generation of Ravenswood students with

disabilities to leave the District after eighth grade without having received a free, appropriate

public education as the IDEA requires.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/20/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1151 Filed 12/20/07 Page 9 of 9