Timeline of the Portland TAG Appeal

 

 BACKGROUND

State funding 1978-9, $1 MILLION
State funding 2000-1 $220,000
State Funding 2004    $0

 LAW FOR TAG CHILDREN, passed 1987, to be implemented 1990-1992,
 revised 1995.

WHAT LAW SAYS
                   IDENTIFY, 97TH. % math, reading, intelligence,
                   "potential"
                   ASSESS: across required curriculum
                   INSTRUCT at "assessed levels of learning and accelerated
                   rates of learning"
                   GIVE PARENTS information, access right to withdraw. Provides for Appeals at State level


 WHAT THE LAW DOES NOT ADDRESS
                  Timelines
                  Written plans
                  Where instruction takes place “classroom instruction”

PORTLAND'S RESPONSE TO TAG MANDATE

         Close TAG centers, end “pull out program”
         Classroom teachers given responsibility for services for individual students
         Principals responsible for implementing mandate in schools.

        DTAC (TAG advisory committee) expresses concerns about this policy
        DTAC parent survey suggests widespread dissatisfaction.
        DTAC Subcommittee writes position paper, approved by committee  APRIL 1996                 
        

 SCHOOL BOARD RESPONSE

 Board subcommittee adopts an edited version as the “Framework” for TAG services,  (approved by Board  June 1996 as official district  tag policy)
 TAG dept. publishes parent handbook.

Superintendent and Directors agree to policy and timeline: this is still in effect 

HIGHLIGHTS OF PPS FRAMEWORK:

 


 APPEAL TO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, MARCH, 1997


 STATE INVESTIGATION WINTER 1997-8  

Found that district was not meeting state law in

 

·Identifying students

·Notifying parents of appeal rights

·Assessing level/rate of learning

·Teaching at assessed level and rate

 

MARCH 30: STATE ISSUED FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND COMPLIANCE ORDER, AMENDED AND REISSUED IN JUNE, 1998

        REQUIRED THE DISTRICT TO:

· Identify all intellectually gifted students

· Notify parents of rights/complaint procedure

· Provide in-service training for teachers

· Notify teachers of their TAG students

· Provide current assessments for all TAG students

· Provide instructional plans for all TAG students

· Provide instruction at students’ assessed rate and level of learning

·Provide timely services.

 

JULY,1998, THE STATE GRANTED THE DISTRICT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION.   FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION EXTENDED TO 2000



DISTRICT RESPONSE:
        
 GAVE TAG department more authority
  Identification decisions scheduled in three “rounds” (now two)
  Early entry policy revised
  New PAT contract required payment for writing gifted plans but TAG department did not receive adequate funding.  Middle school plans written only on parent request. Elementary school parents may waive plans.




STATE FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION WINTER 2000, AMENDED ORDER ISSUED AUGUST 2000, AMENDED AGAIN MARCH 2001                


PPS MUST:

 

·Submit implementation calendar

·Provide professional development for principals and supervisors

·Document how each building and classroom provides appropriate services

·Certify to ODE that by May 1, 2002 all teachers of TAG students have been assessed on their implementation of appropriate instruction

 

STATE WAS TO INVESTIGATE AGAIN BY JUNE 1, 2002.  POSTPONED BY ONE YEAR;

REPORT DUE JUNE 1, 2003. Report actually issued May 7, 2004

MARCH-MAY 2001 PPS BUDGET PROCESS CUTS NEARLY 40% OF TAG BUDGET

 

2002


Sept. 2002: State Grant-in-Aid funding to Regional Planning groups eliminated.


Fall, 2002: PPS hires “OUTSIDE EVALUATOR”: Barbara Maurer to evaluate PPS TAG program.  Her Report of February 2003 found serious problems based on  NAGC standards
        
 

2003

 

October, 2003: State TAG specialist, Dr. Pehkonen, resigns--ODE TAG specialist position unfilled for school year


November 4, 2003: Secretary of State issues “auditor’s letter” mentioning problems with the TAG program as a risk to the Department
 

November, 2003: ODE seeks advice from Department of Justice.

 

2004

 

 April-May 2004: ODE holds statewide TAG “input sessions”    Sessions reveal many TAG problems statewide            
 

May 7, 2004: ODE issues findings stating it found PPS in compliance
 

May 26, 2004:  Parents send letter to ODE objecting to findings

 

August 5, 2004: Parents file petition for reversal of findings in circuit court
 

August 2004: ODE names Andrea Morgan acting TAG specialist 1/3 time

 

 

2005

 

February 2005: ODE files a petition for summary judgment; parents respond with a cross-petition for summary judgment

May 12, 2005: Circuit court hearing; judge finds for parents from bench
 

August 9, 2005: Judge signs court order for summary judgment.  Order is to be carried out within 90 days of signature or 60 days of start of school (October  19th) whichever comes first.
   Court order requires that ODE:

·         hire a consultant to carry out an investigation based on objective data

·         review OARs for compliance with ORS

·         resolve parent complaints within 90 days and keep them on file


Court Clerks fail to file summary judgment.  Judgment is signed for a second       

 time by Judge Fisher, but in the process it is amended (without prior notice to plaintiffs) to extend deadline for compliance to 90 days from signing on October 7 (=January 5, 2006)

 ?September: ODE appeals and requests stay of judgment from Circuit Court pending appeal

December 20, 2005:  Judge Jan Wyers denies stay

December 20, 2005:  ODE issues “Request for Qualifications” from prospective
 investigators

 

2006

 

January 5: 90 calendar days from signing of court order expire: ODE is now in violation

First week of January, 2006 ODE files requests for emergency stay of judgment and stay of judgment pending appeal with the Court of Appeals; these are granted

April 25:  ODE and petitioners agree in mediation on a process to select a new contractor to investigate PPS.  Any investigator is to have TAG training or recent TAG experience

June 23: Request for Proposals issued--Deadline extended to July 25. No proposals submitted.

 

October Plaintiff’s attorney contacts some nationally recognized TAG experts to ask why the proposal received no responses.  Two respond that it offered insufficient funds and insufficient time to conduct an adequate investigation.  ODE and ODOJ refuse to consider revising the terms of the RFP to increase time/funds.  

November 14. ODE announces plans to carry out investigation using Roberta Hutton without the consent of the parents despite lack of evidence that she meets the qualifications agreed in the mediation order.

 

 

2007

 

April 16-May 17: Roberta Hutton and other ODE staff members hold meetings for TAG parents concerning Portland’s TAG services; school visits are also conducted.

 

October 11:  Judge Marshall hears Motion to Enforce the General Judgment.  Plaintiffs’ Motion argues that Roberta Hutton was not qualified to carry out a TAG investigation.  ODE argues Ms. Hutton was not the “investigator” but was merely doing legwork for Andrea Morgan, ODE TAG specialist.  Judge Marshall rules that ODE has not yet produced report so motion was premature and dismisses it without prejudice.

 

December: Oregon Department issues draft final findings

 

 

2008

 

February 20:  ODE and parents reach settlement agreement to resolve ODE's appeal of the 2005 Court Order

 

February 27: ODE issues final findings and compliance order as required by the Court Order