Board Appeal Decision on enrollment discrimination complaint

This is important. This is, I think, one of the greatest things any Seattle School Board has ever done. I'm looking forward to how it ends and I'm optimistic that it will end well.

Here's the quick version:
A family applied for assignment to an Option School for their student with disabilities. While other general education students were assigned to the school, the District maintained a separate assignment queue for students with disabilities and set a capacity for students with disabilities at the school. In the end, the student was not assigned to the Option School. The family complained that the assignment process was discriminatory. Their complaint was denied at a variety of lower levels and appealed, eventually, to the Board.

Here's the Board's decision.

The Board had some findings. This was one:

2. The parent applied to have her student with special needs placed at an option school. However, because the demand for special education services at the option school was greater than the capacity, her student was placed on the waitlist and ultimately denied a placement. Her student was placed and now attends his neighborhood assignment school.

So I have to ask: What determined the "capacity" for special education services at the Option School? How is that set? And, more to the point, WHY is that set? Don't students with disabilities, for the most part, get assigned to their neighborhood schools without any of those schools setting a maximum number of Special Education students they will accept?

Here's another finding:

3. The parent filed a complaint alleging that the District's failure to provide the student with placement at the option school was the result of a discriminatory enrollment process. In response to the complaint, an investigation was conducted by the District and the Deputy Superintendent determined by letter dated May 27, 2016 that no discrimination had occurred. 

Holy Cow! How could anyone not find the enrollment process discriminatory?!? Student A would be enrolled if without a disability but because Student A has a disability, he is not enrolled. How in the world is that not discriminatory?

And yet, the Board decided:

The parent had the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the District's failure to place her student at the option school was discriminatory. School districts have legal leeway and latitude in reasonably allocating services throughout the District so long as the District is able to provide a continuum of educational placements to its students. The burden of proof was not satisfied in this case and the Board does not have sufficient facts to conclude that the enrolment process was discriminatory. 

Apparently the Board determined that the District has the legal authority to cap enrollment of students with disabilities at schools under the guise of "reasonably allocating services throughout the District". So, there was discrimination, but it was legally protected.

Not good, right?

But then the Board wrote this:

In addition, resolution of the broader, systemic issues raised by the appeal are most appropriately addressed by the Board in its legislative capacity rather than pursuant to an individual complaint process.

In other words, the Board acknowledges that the student assignment process is discriminatory and they plan to fix it. But they want to fix it at the policy level for all students, not at the complaint level for just one student.

So, while the Board denied the appeal, they are clearly troubled by the inequities in the assignment system and so they directed the Superintendent to take some specific actions by the end of October:

1. Endeavor to place students according to their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) which address their specific needs;
2. Provide the full Board with a report detailing
1. the geographic allocation of special education services by type e.g., ACCESS, SM4, etc.;
2. the number and ratios (special education to general education) of students at each location;
3. the allocation of special education services to option schools by number and type; and, 
4. the current policies, criteria and procedures used to make decisions about the placement of such services, including the number of allocated spaces, wait-listing practices and policies during the past three years;
3. Complete and provide to the full Board your analysis of the current special education placement practices with regard to option schools and any equity issues raised by the current practices; and,
4. Schedule a presentation to the Board during a Work Session to present the above information and undertake the Board's review of addressing any systemic inequities in the current practices and policies.

For the first time, the Superintendent is going to have to explain how he set the capacity for various types of service at each school. Let's face it; he can't. They are completely arbitrary.

When exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight, we can hope that these baseless and discriminatory practices will end. There is no legitimate reason to cap the enrollment of students with IEPs at Option Schools or any schools. There is no legitimate reason to have a separate waitlist for students with disabilities. It's time for this blatant discrimination to end.