11/21/11 Helping a Bullied Child

1/4 washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article//AR2006021400793_pf.html
Helping a Bllied Child
B Ja Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesda, Februar 14, 2006 11:06 AM
One da in Ma 2004, a student at Short Pump Elementar
School in Henrico Count, Va., walked up to fourth-grader
David Henck in the cafeteria and said, "It would be a hol
da if ou were shot dead b a sniper."
That single incident would have been bothersome enough to
David and his parents, Bill and Leigh Henck, but it was not
the first time children at Short Pump Elementar had been
cruel to David. He has Asperger Sndrome, a
neurobiological disorder marked in part b social clumsiness. He was, as his father put it, a bull magnet, and his
parents did not think the school was doing enough to help him.
I am telling this stor based almost entirel on Bill Henck's account. I asked the Henrico Count school sstem
for a response, but at first got onl two short and relativel general statements from the superintendent, which did
not surprise me in the least. I have been investigating several cases of communication between parents and
school officials in difficult circumstances, and the standard official response to the parents, and to an reporters
who might inquire, is often as little a response as possible.
I don't blame the school officials for this. It seems to me, and the biarre twists of the Henck case buttress that
impression, that the educators are doing onl what their lawers tell them to do. I don't have an cure for this, but
I think relating what happened to the Hencks, and how the achieved the momentar but still remarkable
milestone of getting the Short Pump Elementar principal indicted for perjur, will dramatie what an awful
problem we have in parent-school relationships, and how it might be a good time to get people other than
attornes involved.
The tale of David Henck and the bullies of Short Pump Elementar began long before what the hearing officer in
their special education transfer case called "the sniper incident." Students had been mean to David throughout his
fourth-grade ear, but he did not tell his parents about it until Februar 2004. When his parents called his
teacher, she admitted that she "was aware of earlier incidents of bulling, but had not notified us," Bill Henck
said. The teacher was not identified publicl and not made available for comment.
At least three students harassed David. He told his parents he regularl informed the teacher of what was
happening, and more than once she spoke to the students and sent them to the principal's office. But after the
sniper incident, the Hencks decided their child, because of his disabilit, had to transfer to another school for his
safet and mental health, a decision that the felt was particularl wise when the learned later that the child who
made the sniper comment was never given detention or even a suspension for that offense.
When the Hencks made the transfer request, common under special education rules, the Henrico Count officials
11/21/11 Helping a Bullied Child
2/4 washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article//AR2006021400793_pf.html
said Short Pump, and only Short Pump, was the proper placement Ior David, also a common response in such
cases. The Hencks transIerred David to a local private school anyway and asked a due process hearing oIIicer
to grant their request that the school district pay their $9,950 tuition bill Ior the 2004-2005 school year.
Many parents who have struggled with the special education rules and procedures will assume that what
happened next was not good. Across the country, the parents oI disabled children are at war with our nation's
public education system, but their battles have become so common and so Iutile that journalists like me rarely
write about them, in the same way that we oIten overlook whatever bloody little conIlicts are going on in the
Third World.
I have attended special education due process hearings and watched the school system attorneys hired to save
taxpayer dollars politely eviscerate the parents seeking more services or a payment Ior private school. OIten the
parents are more or less deIenseless against a competent lawyer, since they oIten cannot aIIord to hire their own
attorney. A whole sector oI the bar, lucrative to many oI the private specialists, is devoted to what seems to me,
at least in part, the science oI intimidating, humiliating and deIeating parents in these cases. Some oI the lawyers
attend conIerences designed to teach them the latest tricks, all oI which is completely legal in our adversarial
system.
According to Bill Henck, Tom Tokarz, the attorney Ior the Henrico County attorney's oIIice who deIended the
school system in the case, took such an aggressive approach that by the end oI the hearing the Hencks were
absolutely Iurious, which might explain why they went so Iar to conIront the county aIter the hearing.
Bill Henck said the school system Iailed to honor the Henck subpoena Ior inIormation in the case. He said
Tokarz badgered and verbally abused Leigh Henck when he spoke to her beIore and during the hearing in
October 2004. He said Tokarz waved his hands in his wiIe's Iace and berated her several times, including
mispronouncing her name in a demeaning way. Leigh Henck pronounces her Iirst name "Lay," but her husband
said Tokarz twice pronounced it "Lie" and then smirked and said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Did I mispronounce your
name?"
Tokarz, a 25-year veteran oI due process hearings, said these accusations were "exaggerated and unwarranted."
He said: "I don't recall waving my hands in Mrs. Henck's Iace, and my pronunciation oI Mrs. Henck's name was
unintentional because it is not pronounced as it is spelled. Furthermore, although some people may regard it as
mean or harassing, vigorous cross-examination is a time-tested way oI trying to get to the truth."
During the hearing, Bill Henck said, both the principal, Ronald Odom, and the teacher made Ialse and misleading
statements. Hearing oIIicer William S. Francis Jr., who according to Henck was one oI the Iew oIIicials who
readily answered his questions, accepted the teacher's statement that she did what she could to help David, but
was much tougher on Odom.
"Mr. Odom oIIered little testimony oI beneIit, being uncooperative and evasive," Francis said in his due process
hearing report. "Much oI his testimony was inconsistent with previous testimony or with exhibits."
Francis said Odom "made the judgment in regards to David's placement Ior the next school year on the same
basis that he made the judgment that he did not have to comply with my subpoena Ior notes," a reIerence to
Odom's statement that it was the consensus oI school oIIicials that they did not have to answer the subpoena.
"Mr. Odom was clearly impeached and contradicted by the evidence in regard to his knowledge oI other bullying
incidents oI David," Francis said.
11/21/11 Helping a Bullied Child
3/4 washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article//AR2006021400793_pf.html
I have not known Bill Henck very long, but it is clear to me that he is a very persistent person. School oIIicials
hate people like that. Henck said some county oIIicials shouted at him Ior pursuing the matter. But stubborn
parents like Henck tend to accomplish things that less persistent parents like me do not because we decide such
battles are a waste oI time and energy and give up.
A comprehensive account oI all the things Henck did to get legal redress Ior what he considered lies told at the
hearing would make this column three times as long as it is. Here is the quick summary: He continued to call and
write and call and write every relevant legal authority until a deputy commonwealth's attorney in Henrico, hearing
Henck say his oIIice had a conIlict oI interest, transIerred the case to Linwood Gregory, commonwealth's
attorney in New Kent County. Gregory took the case seriously, interviewed the Hencks, looked at their
evidence and indicted Odom on Nov. 14, 2005, on a single count oI perjury.
The charge didn't last very long. It was dismissed two months later on the grounds that Virginia law does not
provide Ior witnesses taking an oath at special education due process hearings and thus witnesses cannot be
charged with perjury. The Hencks' attorney advised them not to appeal the due process opinion because it
would be hard to beat the county, and iI they lost, they Iaced potential liability oI more than $100,000 in a case
in which they were looking Ior just $9,950.
In response to my Iirst request Ior a reaction to Bill Henck's story, Henrico County school superintendent Fred
S. Morton IV sent me two statements. The Iirst statement in Iull was: "We are pleased that Mr. Odom was not
convicted oI perjury since our internal review concluded that his misstatements in the due process hearing were
neither intentional nor material. However, our satisIaction with the outcome oI the criminal charge should not be
taken as support or encouragement oI our teachers and administrators to lie in due process hearings. We expect
and require every Henrico County Public School employee to tell the truth in special education due process
hearings, or any other type oI hearing involving any student, because integrity is at the core oI educational
proIessionalism."
His second statement in Iull was: "One oI the challenges in resolving disputes in an educational setting is that at
the core oI every dispute is a parent's child -- and that parents, generally, care more deeply about their children
than anything else. To that end, we make every attempt to resolve disputes Iairly, quickly, openly, and with a
great deal oI sensitivity. However, as educators, we know that not every parent is going to be satisIied and that
despite our best eIIorts, every parent is not going to believe that their child was treated Iairly. We do the very
best we can and, like every other public school division I know oI, we are continually looking Ior ways to
improve. We have done so here and we will continue to do so in the Iuture."
AIter seeing an early draIt oI this column, Morton sent a longer statement. He said in that statement "the school
division has addressed the principal's inaccurate testimony and his Iailure to Iully comply with the subpoena. As a
result oI the Iather's complaints, the school division conducted a Iull investigation oI the principal's conduct in the
hearing. This investigation concluded that the principal testiIied inaccurately about whether a student received two
days detention but that the inaccuracy was due to errors in preparation and recollection rather than a knowing
attempt to deceive. In addition, the investigation concluded that the principal Iailed to completely comply with the
subpoena Ior records without justiIication. Although the IEP |individual education plan| meeting notes were
immediately produced to the hearing oIIicer and were oI no consequence to the outcome, the principal was
wrong not to produce them in the Iirst instance."
How did Francis rule on the Hencks' request to have their private school tuition paid by the county? Many
special education parents reading this will have already guessed. They lost, but there was much oI value in
11/21/11 Helping a Bullied Child
4/4 washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article//AR2006021400793_pf.html
Francis' report, as he laid out the cold, hard truths of the special education system in America.
"Although I find from the evidence that David was subject to what I shall term as harassment, teasing, bullying
and threatening conduct from other students because of his qualifying educational disability and I find that it had
at least some effect upon his social and emotional adjustment and stability and therefore by inference must have
had some effect upon his ability to learn, I cannot therefrom conclude that Henrico has failed in its statutory duty
to this student," Francis wrote.
"Whether one agrees with it or not," he wrote, "the law establishes a minimum baseline of educational benefits
that the county must offer students with disabilities." The law said David was entitled to a "free and appropriate
public education," not, Francis said, "the best possible education."
No matter how angry and disheartened the Hencks, and other parents like them, feel about the way they were
treated, all that is required is that the school system provide specialized services that "are sufficient to confer
some educational benefit upon the handicapped child," Francis wrote.
David Henck is apparently doing better at his private school, but the whole experience, his father said, "has cost
my family dearly. Not only the money and time we have had to invest, but also the stress and pain we have had
to endure."
That is too bad. The legal system doesn't seem to care much. The U.S. Supreme Court in one of its most recent
decisions made it even harder for special education families such as the Hencks to get what they consider justice.
So it may be time to focus instead on those few schools that have found ways to make special education work,
and how they do that. Good educators are the only people who are likely to get us out of this mess. The lawyers,
as thoughtful and dedicated as they often are, just follow the rules, and that didn't get David Henck and his
parents anywhere.
Vie all commen ha hae been poed abo hi aicle.
2006 The Washington Post Company
Sponoed Link
ITT Tech - Official Site
Tech-Oriented Degree Programs. Education for the Future.
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Boto Doctors Worried
Will Your Heart Stop?
These 4 things happen right before a heart attack. See the full list!
Bu a link here