Since its founding, the Youth and Education Law Project has worked with disadvantaged youth and their communities to ensure that they have access to equal and excellent educational opportunities.
Whether filing a class-action lawsuit to prevent a local school district from unlawfully excluding students from school without providing them their constitutional right to a hearing, advocating for a preschooler with autism in a mediation session to ensure that he receives appropriate educational services, or drafting a policy brief that seeks to improve the delivery of mental health services to youth with disabilities, students in the clinic are exposed to a wide range of educational policy reform and advocacy work.
Under the direction of Professor Bill Koski (PhD '03), students represent youth and families in special education and school discipline matters, community outreach and education, school reform litigation, policy research, and advocacy.
"In addition to developing first-rate lawyering skills such as client counseling, negotiation, and oral advocacy, students in the clinic are given the opportunity to take ownership of their cases and projects, reflect on their practice, and develop the critical quality of sound professional judgment."
Professor Bill Koski (PhD '03), Director, Youth and Education Law Project
Students in the Education Advocacy Clinic of the Youth and Education Law Clinic have the opportunity to represent children and youth in a variety of school-related matters. Below are summaries of some of our recent cases:
Reggie is a 13-year-old boy in the 8th grade. He suffers from clinical depression and family strife: he comes from a caring, but very low-income, single-parent home, and has witnessed domestic violence. In addition, he is learning disabled and has been in special education since the 4th grade. As he entered adolescence, his self-esteem worsened and he began courting gangs and using drugs and alcohol in order to cope with the stresses of life. In addition, his father was incarcerated, and this factor was pivotal in his downwardly spiraling behavior, both at school and at home. Halfway through the 7th grade, Reggie's school district found that, despite his poor grades and slow learning, he no longer qualified for special education services, and attempted to have him mainstreamed. This move proved to be disastrous for Reggie. His behavior worsened, as did his grades, and he missed a significant amount of school. Meanwhile, Reggie's mother was able to have a prominent diagnost center in the Bay Area perform educational and psychological assessments for him. Their recommendations called for intensive and comprehensive mental health and educational interventions as quickly as possible. Unable or possibly unwilling to provide the appropriate placement within his middle school, the district recommended that Reggie be "home school" until a suitable "Emotional Disturbance" classroom could be located. As the Fall 2003 semester started, Reggie languished at home, receiving an average of one hour per day of education. His mother contacted the Youth and Education Law Clinic for assistance
Through clinic's intervention and our law student's work, Reggie is now going to an intensive therapeutic day school, which is a collaboration involving a private agency and a public school district. There he receives individual, group, and family therapy, as well as intensive special education instruction. This is a tremendous victory for a young man whose life is at a critical juncture.
David is a 16-year-old product of neglect of the school system, which over the years has allowed him to slowly drop from performing at the 50th percentile on standardized tests to between the first and fifth percentiles, because of unrecognized learning disabilities. More damaging, David's school district was seeking to expel him for behavior directly related to his diagnosed emotional problems. This is when the Youth and Education Law Clinic and a clinic student got involved. David's learning disabilities and his emotional problems--which involve disassociation in threatening situations and were well known to the school--have manifested themselves in the form of behavior problems, which were the basis for the district's efforts to expel him. The district would rather have washed its hands of David altogether than provide the appropriate services to help him succeed within a comprehensive high school setting.
With a clinical law student's assistance, not only did David prevail in his expulsion proceedings, but the public school district finally recognized his needs and placed him in an appropriate non-public high school at no cost to the family.
William is a blind, multiple-disabled, 17-year-old high school student whose educational program needs must be met through a state school that serves blind children. Due to the fact that William is not only blind but severely mentally retarded, the state school refused to properly serve his needs once he turned 16 years of age, and would no longer allow him to have a one-to-one aide in the age-appropriate classroom. William's mother contacted the Youth and Education Law Clinic to obtain services from the state school and the school district, and to have him properly assessed in order to obtain better services for him. Otherwise, the mother feared that her son would be pushed out of school without any meaningful education and enrichment. Her original goal was to have William remain in the state school, because of his familiarity with the teachers and the vocational program, and because his home school district was unable to meet his needs as a blind student. His mother felt trapped and saw due process as the only alternative.
The clinic helped the parent obtain outside expert assessments, attended pre-due process mediation and settlement conferences, and eventually secured an individualized program that combines educational and disability resources from the state school, the home school district, and the private sector. He has enrichment courses including music and physical education, and to the delight of himself and his mother, he is thriving in this multi-faceted placement.
Jaime is a 7-year-old boy who suffered traumatic brain injury (ataxia) after choking on a peanut at the age of 3. Until that time, he was a healthy child, and of typical development in all respects. After the accident, he was virtually nonverbal, although his receptive language skills are adequate, both in English and Spanish. He has compromised motor skills and is dependent upon a wheelchair or a walker to get around. He must eat many of his foods through a gastrointestinal tube. His means of communicating are through gestures and an iconic communication device. Jaime was placed in a special education, 1st-grade classroom for severely disabled children who were significantly lower functioning than Jaime. As well, his classroom teacher was not particularly qualified in dealing with orthopedically impaired children. Although Jaime was not classified as "OI," his therapists determined that this was his primary disability. Meanwhile, he was languishing in this classroom setting, despite having a one-to-one aide and receiving therapy at a neighboring school district site. He was only partially mainstreamed in the 1st grade, during which time he flourished. His mother's goal was to have Jaime more fully included in a mainstream classroom or be placed in a special day-class setting in the neighboring school district, as that was the site of his therapies; she believed he would have a better educational experience there than in the home school district. Jaime's home school district tried to dissuade the parents from this option, maintaining that there was no space available. The district instead showed the parents classrooms far remote from home that also proved to have no space available.
Through the clinic's intervention, Jaime's classification was changed to "OI," as a result of which the home school district had to admit that it did not have adequate resources to meet his needs. Through a negotiated settlement between the clinic and the district's counsel, Jaime was placed at his neighboring school district where he had been receiving therapy. He currently is in a special day classroom, and is happy, learning, and growing.
Monica is a 15-year-old 9th grader who began attending her new high school this fall semester. In her previous middle school setting, she was on the principal's honor roll and considered to be a disciplined, serious student bound for college. Less than two months into her new school setting, she was charged with felonious possession of a weapon on school grounds and placed in expulsion proceedings. However, the weapon had been placed in her backpack, unbeknownst to her, and the student responsible for it later removed it from her backpack. Nevertheless, her minimal and nonconsenting role was viewed at the same level of criminality as that of the student who instigated the event. In her statements to the school administration and the police, Monica was forthright and honest about her role. Nevertheless, because of a "zero tolerance" policy that this school adopted regarding weapons possessions cases, Monica's school was bent on making an example of her by according the same weight to her role in the incident. Monica was sent home and placed in a community day school to await her fate.
The Youth and Education Law Clinic worked with the family and the student in preparation for the hearing and developed sound legal arguments and bases for future appeals, if necessary. On the morning of the expulsion hearing, the clinic received a telephone call from the school district's counsel, offering to drop the expulsion charges and to reinstate her at the school or another school of her choice within the district the following semester. The clients immediately accepted this offer. Attorney and students believe that their hard work and excellent preparation of the case--despite being hampered by lack of access to crucial information (such as a police report and witness statements)--may have influenced, at least in part, the school district's willingness to settle so quickly and without a hearing. As well, the school district may have thought twice about the consequences of its "zero tolerance" policy and the ramifications of punishing those students who come forward and tell the truth.
Jeremy is a 4-year-old child who attends a county Early Childhood Center that he and his parents enjoy, and has a dangerous and unusual tonic-clonic seizure disorder. He was born with ataxic cerebral palsy and suffers from a movement disorder, delayed speech and language, impaired cognitive development, and epilepsy. The best-known means of controlling his very dangerous seizures is through a rectally delivered form of valium, commonly known as Diastat. Most children with epilepsy endure brief seizures that resolve themselves quickly, without intervention. Jeremy, however, suffers from an unusual and far more dangerous seizure pattern. In his experience, untreated seizures persist without end, and lead to a state of nonstop continuous seizure activity called status epilepticus. Prolonged seizures (30 minutes or more in duration) are often accompanied by loss of consciousness, and are significantly more difficult to abort than shorter seizures. Children who enter status epilepticus are at high risk for permanent neurological damage and death. Diastat is the only remedy that will control and minimize the effect of Jeremy's seizures during the school day. However, the county office of education, as well as the child's home school district, refused to administer the medication, citing liability issues. This put Jeremy's mother in the position of having to sit in a nearby cafe while her son attended the county school, armed with Diastat in the event her son went into a seizure. This situation precluded her from obtaining gainful employment; she contacted the Youth and Education Law Clinic.
The clinic researched what legally constitutes a "free and appropriate education" (FAPE) an "related service" as part of FAPE, arguing that administering prescription medications is a related service, and that by denying Jeremy this service, he was denied FAPE. On the eve of a due process hearing to resolve the case, the school district and the county--the latter more reluctantly--agreed. The family, the county, and the school district have now settled, and Jeremy is happily attending school; to date, he has had no seizures in school. As well, his mother no longer has to wait around idly and nervously waiting for "the phone call."
In addition to the direct services that the Youth and Education Law Project provides to children and families, we also work with community groups seeking more equitable and high quality opportunities for their children. Below are descriptions of two projects--the first a high-profile class action lawsuit and the second an ongoing research project aimed at changing state policy on mental health services.
Emma C. v. Delaine Eastin (N.D. Cal. Civil Case No. C 96-4179 TEH). In 1996, Emma C. and seven other children in East Palo Alto's Ravenswood City School District sued the district and the California Department of Education (CDE) on behalf of all children with disabilities in the district for the district's systemic failure to provide children with disabilities the free and appropriate public education to which they are entitled. The director of the Youth and Education Law Clinic (in affiliation with the East Palo Alto Community Law Project) has co-counseled this class action lawsuit before Judge Thelton Henderson of the Northern District of California. The children in the case alleged that the district's special education program is systemically noncompliant with state and federal special education laws, as the district has failed to identify children with disabilities, failed to adequately and nondiscriminatorily assess such children, failed to provide them with appropriate individual education programs, failed to provide them services, and segregated them from their nondisabled peers. After plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, both the CDE and an independent group of expert consultants investigated Ravenswood's special education programs and concluded that the plaintiffs' allegationwere correct. Notwithstanding that finding, the district continued to resist intervention and litigate all aspects of the case.
It was not until September 1999, that the parties entered a comprehensive settlement agreement that provided for compensatory education services for those who had been denied services in the past and a corrective action plan that was designed to overhaul the district's special education program. Judge Henderson approved the agreement as a consent decree and held out cautious optimism that the district would embrace the corrective action plan and improve its services. Unfortunately for children with disabilities in the district, by April 2001, the district had completed less than 33 percent of the corrective activities it had agreed to undertake by that time. Left with no choice, plaintiffs asked Judge Henderson to hold the district in contempt and both the CDE and the plaintiffs requested that the then-current administration--which had a history of cronyism and failure to serve children--be removed from power. After extensive testimonial hearings and briefing, Judge Henderson held the district in contempt, but, out of an abundance of caution, gave the district until March 31, 2002 to come into compliance with certain activities.
As the looming threat of a judicial receivership or state takeover brought high-level, and sometimes unwelcome, notoriety to the school district, a grassroots movement for a change in East Palo Alto's school district took to the streets, literally. Holding monthly demonstrations and broadening its base of awareness and support among parents, in November 2002, East Palo Alto voters went to the polls and elected a new school board.
As a result of this change in leadership, plaintiffs' attorneys--led by a dedicated group of activists and Emma C. plaintiffs--focused their energies on negotiating a revised Ravenswood Corrective Action Plan, now called the Ravenswood Self-Improvement Plan (RSIP), as well as an amended consent decree. They reached an agreement with the district and the California Department of Education on the RSIP that, among other things, enhances the integration of children with disabilities into general education classrooms, ensures greater parent participation in their children's educational planning and IEP team meetings, and provides assurances that all services will be implemented and/or that parents will be notified of any shortfalls of implementation. Judge Henderson approved of the amended consent decree and the RSIP. As a result, the school district remains independent and no longer subject to receivership, provided it continues to make good-faith efforts to improve the education and services available to East Palo Alto's special needs children.
Report on 2004 County Mental Health Services In May 2004, the Youth and Education Law Clinic released "Challenge and Opportunity: An Analysis of Chapter 26.5 and the System for Delivering Mental Health Services to Special Education Students in California," a comprehensive report on Chapter 26.5 (County Mental Health Services) that examines its implementation and the barriers to mental health service delivery to children in special education. The report will be of interest to advocates, service providers, and policy makers alike, as we all grapple with the difficulties of providing mental health services to special education students.
If, after reading this section, you believe your child needs assistance with special education services, please access the resources listed below or contact the Youth and Education Law Clinic.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law, all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one are entitled to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), commonly know as special education. Special education is a program that provides specialized instruction for children with cognitive, physical, and emotional disabilities at no cost to the parent. A FAPE may also include the provision of related services, which are any services necessary to help the child benefit from the special education services, including transportation, mental health services, or occupational therapy.
Each public school child who receives special education services must have an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP creates an opportunity for teachers, parents, school administrators, related services personnel, and students (when appropriate) to work together to improve the education of children with disabilities. The IEP document explains the instructions and services that a child will receive in the following year.
View a step-by-step outline of the basic special education process.
Are there any other services my child is entitled to receive if my child does not qualify for special education under the IDEA? If your child is found not to be eligible for special education services under the IDEA, your child may still qualify for some services or modifications under Section 504. Section 504 in some instances provides protections to children with a greater range of disabilities. Section 504 protections are available to students who can be regarded in a functional sense as "handicapped," i.e., students who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. For example, children with Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder automatically receive 504 protections, whereas under the IDEA the parent must prove that their child qualifies under the "other health impairment category." Also a child who is HIV positive would receive protections under Section 50 but not necessarily the IDEA. If the child qualifies under Section 504 the educational agency is required to provide an individualized education plan for the student, often called a "Section 504 plan."
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities; California Department of Special Education; Special Education Rights and Responsibilities (written by Community Alliance for Special Education and Protection and Advocacy, Inc.)
In May 2004, the Youth and Education Law Clinic released "Challenge and Opportunity: An Analysis of Chapter 26.5 and the System for Delivering Mental Health Services to Special Education Students in California," a comprehensive report on Chapter 26.5 (County Mental Health Services) that examines its implementation and the barriers to mental health service delivery to children in special education. The report will be of interest to advocates, service providers, and policy makers alike, as we all grapple with the difficulties of providing mental health services to special education students.
The following are frequently asked questions regarding mental health services for school-aged children, and we hope of use to parents. If you need further assistance, please contact the Youth and Education Law Clinic, or access one of the resources listed below or in the Special Education section.
When is my child eligible for mental health services?
Mental health services must be provided to any child when the child's emotional status has a negative effect on his or her educational performance and needs the services to help him or her benefit from special education.
What types of mental health services are available?
There are two types of mental health services available: counseling and psychotherapy.
What agencies are responsible for providing services?
The local school district is required to provide the necessary mental health services to the child. However, if the local school district determines it is incapable of providing the necessary services, the local school district may refer the child to other county mental health agencies. These referrals are commonly known as a Chapter 26.5 referrals or A.B. 3632 referrals.
When is my child eligible for a Chapter 26.5 referral?
The local school district should consider the following criteria in deciding to make a referral:
What types of services are available through a Chapter 26.5 referral?
The specific types of services provided under Chapter 26.5 include the following:
How long does it take to complete a Chapter 26.5 referral?
Once the IEP team determines referral is appropriate, a referral packet must be assembled and sent to county mental health within one workday. Within five days of receiving the packet, county mental health must determine if further assessment is necessary or appropriate. If an assessment is deemed appropriate, county mental health provides the parent with a consent form. Once the parent returns the consent form, county mental health has one day to contact the school to arrange for an IEP meeting to discuss the results of the assessment. Once the parent consents to an assessment, the IEP meeting must take place within 50 days.
Does my child need to be eligible for special education services in order to be eligible for a Chapter 26.5 referral?
A child who has not been found eligible for special education services, but is "suspected of needing special education" may be eligible for Chapter 26.5 referral.
Can only the IEP team make a Chapter 26.5 referral?
Chapter 26.5 referrals can also be made by juvenile courts regarding children who have been determined to be a dependent of the court.
Are there any other mental health services I can access for my child?
Your child may be eligible for mental health services from the following public or private health insurance programs:
| Program | Eligibility | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Medi-Cal | Age 0-1: up to 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) 1-5: up to 133% FPL 6-19: up to 100 % FPL 19-21: up to 92% FPL Child must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident and a California resident. |
No cost or share of cost, depending on family income |
| Healthy Families | Age 0-1: 200-250% FPL 1-5: 133-250% FPL 6-18: 100-250% FPL Child must not be eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal. Child must be a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant and a California resident. Parents must not have had job-based coverage for the 3 months prior to applying to the program. |
Minimum $4 and maximum $27 monthly premium depending on family income. $5 co-pay on non-preventive services. |
| California Kids | Age 2-18: up to 250% FPL 18-19: Foster children up to 300% FPL Coverage provided to income-eligible children who do not qualify for full-scope Medi-Cal or Healthy Families, regardless of immigration status. Families are not required to provide social security numbers or immigration status information. |
Family between 200 and 250 % FPL pay monthly premiums of $20-$25 per child: under 200% FPL no premium. Co payments range from $5-$15. $25 application fee. |
| Kaiser Permanente Cares for Kids | Age 0-19: 250-300 % FPL Not eligible for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families and uninsured for at least 90 days. Families are not required to provide immigration status information; social security numbers are optional on the application. |
Monthly premiums are $15 per child, depending on family income. Co-payments of $5-10 for some services. |
California Department of Education (CDE)
Special Education Division
P.O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 94244-2720
916/445-4613
Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/
Children's Health Council
650 Clark Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
650/326-5530
Website: http://www.chconline.org/
Disability Rights, Education, and Defense Fund (DREDF)
Main Office
2212 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
510/644-2555 V/TTY
Website: http://www.dredf.org/
Diagnostic Center, Northern California
39100 Gallaudet Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
510/794-2500
Website: http://www.dcn-cde.ca.gov/
Parents Helping Parents
3041 Olcott Street
Santa Clara, CA 95054
408/727-5775
FAX: 408/727-0182
E-mail: general@php.com
Website: www.php.com
Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
433 Hegenberger Road, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94621
800/776-5746 (toll free)
Website: www.pai-ca.org
In the matter of Yarman Smith, et al. v. Berkeley Unified School District, et al., Case No. C-04-3306 WDB, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, please see the following documents: