2008年1月底,老何接到教育部民权署A女士打来的电话。
她告诉老何他们办公室就他控告学区一案(其实是市政府)已经完成调查,做出了结论,就在这几天会寄出来。老何问结论是什么?A女士说,根据各方面的材料来看,他们认为ASCC已经构成歧视残疾儿童行为。虽然他们否认,但是在学期结束只差一天开除Jerry足以说明是明显的歧视。学区对此负有责任,因为这是在他们的管辖区里发生的事,而且你报告过,书面和电话都有,他们并没有出面制止。严格说来是可以取消联邦政府对学区的资助,但是考虑到那将会使很多无辜的学生受到影响。我们不愿意看到这种事发生,所以我们没有那么做,希望你能理解。我想你也不希望其他无辜的孩子受到牵连,这是我今天打电话主要目的。但是ASCC不能再在学校里运作了,学区同意让ASCC离开,自己运作一个类似的After School Care以取代ASCC。如果Jerry想回去,什么时候都可以。学区不能以任何借口报复,你如果发现有什么问题,可以随时与我们联系。
老何表示理解同意教育部的决定,那些孩子不能为ASCC的错误而受罚。唯一感到不舒服的是市政府一点都没有事。
2008年2月3日,老何收到联邦政府教育部民权署的正式来信,签署日期为1月31日。
Re: Case No. xx-xx-xxxx
E School District
Dear Mr. He,
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the U. S. Department of Education, New York Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is closing the above-referenced complaint you filed against the E School District alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.
(此信的目的是建议美国教育部纽约民权办公室关闭上面的由你提出的对E学区对残疾人的歧视的指控)
.。。。。。。
The District is a recipient of financial assistance from the Department and is a public elementary and secondary education system. Therefore, the District is subject to the provisions of Section 504 and Title II. (学区接受联邦教育部的资助,也是公立小学和中学教育体统。因此学区必须遵从Section 504和Title II的法律条款)
In reaching a determination, OCR interviewed the Complainant and various District staff members; and reviewed documentation provided by the Complainant, District and Township. Based on the evidence obtained during its investigation, OCR made the following determinations.(为了达到最终决定,OCR约谈了控诉人,几个学区人员,查看了由控诉人,学区和市政府提供的文件资料。基于在调查中获得的资料,OCR做出下列决定)。
OCR determined that the ASCC Program, which is a recreational program providing after school child care to students in the District, is operated by the Township of E in conjunction with the District. The regulation implementing section 504, at 34 C. F. R. 104.4 (b)(v), and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C. F. R. §35.130(b)(1)(v) prohibit recipients of federal funds, such as the District, from aiding or perpetuating discrimination against individuals with disabilities by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of disability.
OCR determined that the ASCC Program is self-funded through tuition fees paid by participants, and the District does not provide direct financial support, staff, materials or program oversight. However, the District provides the ASCC Program with access to its facilities at eight of the District's schools at less than market value, and waives custodial and other facility rental fees normally charged for the use of these facilities. The District also publishes information about the ASCC Program on its website. Based on the above, OCR concluded that the District provides significant assistance to the ASCC Program.
(。。。。。。学区虽然没有给ASCC提供资金,人员,物质方面的支持,但是学区让ASCC能够以低于市场价学区使用八个学校的设施,免除一般都会收取的管理费和租金。学区还将ASCC放在它的网页上。基于上述事实,民权办公室做出学区给ASCC提供了相当的支持)。
The Complaint alleged that during 2006-07 school year, the ASCC failed to provide the student with modifications to address his autism, and terminated him from the Program on the day before the last day of school in June 2007, for alleged inappropriate behavior related to his disability. The Complainant stated that the Student was classified at the District and received services pursuant to his Individualized Education Program (IEP) and behavioral intervention plan that included a classroom aide and resource services, social skills instruction, and behavioral modifications. The Complainant asserted that the ASCC Program failed to respond to his requests to contact the District to seek assistance in dealing with the Student's behaviors that resulted from his disability. (控告人指控ASCC在2006-07学年没有为学生(Jerry)做出调整以适应他的自闭症,在2007年6月学校放假的前一天将其开除,指责他有与自闭症有关联的不适当行为。控告人指出学生(Jerry)是学区定为特殊类学生,接受包括教室助理和资源服务的干预计划,社交技巧教导,和行为矫正。控告人称ASCC没有对他提出的ASCC与学区联系以便寻求怎么对应学生(Jerry)由残障引起的行为做出反应。)
After initiating the investigation, the Complainant advised OCR that he did not enroll the Student in the ASCC Program for the 2007-08 school year, and he was not seeking the Student's re-enrollment in the program. OCR also learned that the ASCC will not longer operate in District schools after the 2007-08 school year; beginning in September 2008, the District will provide its own after school child care program to students in the District. The District submitted evidence to OCR demonstrating the steps it has taken to terminate its relationship with the ASCC Program and establish its own program. ...... Therefore, OCR will take no further action with regard to the Complainant's allegation and is closing the complaint as of the date of the letter. (在这个调查开始后,控诉人说他不会为学生(Jerry)注册2007-08度的ASCC,并且不寻求将来回到ASCC。OCR也获知2007-08学年结束后,ASCC将不再在学区学校运作。从2008年九月起,学区将为自己的学生提供自己的after school child care项目。学区给OCR提供证据,显示它已经采取步骤去终止它与ASCC的关系并建立自己的项目。。。。。。因此,OCR将不再针对控告人指控采取进一步的行动,将以此信的日子为期关闭此案。)
。。。。。。
Please be advised that a Department regulation prohibits the District from harassing or intimidating an individual who has filed a complaint or participated in actions to preserve protected rights.
最后信中警告学区,不能骚扰,恐吓已经提起控诉,参与追求正当权利行动的个人。这是告诉学区与市政府,你们对老何不得有任何报复行为。
信中说了,ASCC是市政府的项目但是在学区管辖的学校里运作,虽然学区否认对ASCC有任何经济上的支持,也没有人员上的卷入,但学区以优惠的价格甚至免除一些租金让ACS用学校设施,而且将ASCC项目放在学区的网页上,所以教育部认为学区给ASCC提供了重要的支持。学区试图撇开与ASCC的关系没有成功,这是教育部能够处罚学区的前提条件。既然学区是获得联邦政府资助的机构,所以学区有责任监督在其管辖领域里的项目,人员遵守联邦法律。
这是一封很奇特的信,字面上学区没有被定为“歧视”,“违法”,连ASCC也没有被说成是有歧视行为。只是罗列了老何的指控,并没有说是不是属实。至少表面上不是老何所最期望得到的结果。但是如果仔细看,却并不是谁都没有错那么简单。信里没有认定“歧视”的字眼。老何的理解是,如果文字上说ASCC歧视,学区就明显违法了Section 504和Title II,教育部就没法回避处罚学区,学区就将失去每年几万甚至几十万的联邦资助。如同教育部在给老何的电话里说的,他们不想这么做。虽然ASCC在文字上没有被定为歧视,但实际上ASCC并没有逃脱处罚。在教育部调查的压力下,学区与ASCC终止了关系,将ASCC在学区的学校全部关闭了。将一个在学区经营了十几或许几十年的ASCC驱除出所有8所学区学校,本身就是最大的处罚,因为ASCC从此就销声匿迹了。
老何控告市政府的目的主要是给Jerry一个公道,为他今后的成长创造出一个良好的环境,并不想因为惩罚学区而波及到别的无辜的孩子。这是他可以接受的一个结果。政府当然要考虑很多,政治就是妥协,所以市政府也因为妥协而毫发无伤,学区也只是是被警告而已,只是ASCC没有了。
历时一年四个月的ASCC事件给老何与儿子带来的噩梦终于结束了。“这下可以美美地睡安稳觉了”,老何想。
三月,所有学区的家长都收到了学区的一封信。信中通知家长从2008年秋季起,市政府的ASCC将不再在学校运作,学区自己运作的ASK (After School Kids)将取代ASCC。家长可以给孩子注册ASK,服务和原来ASCC差不多,但时间延长到6点。ASK Brochure里增加了Discipline Policy,就是孩子如果违反规定的处罚程序。分三个level。 第一个level孩子被警告,并被告知再犯就要通知家长;第二level通知家长,并被告知再犯的话,孩子将被终止一段时间;第三个level,孩子被终止一段时间,直到项目负责人认为可以的时候才能回来。如果还是不改,则会有进一步的处罚甚至可能开除。这些与老何曾经多次向S女士索要程序时说过的基本一样。
没人知道为什么会加上这些条款,老何知道。
为什么ASCC怎么变成ASK了?大部分人可能根本就不去想,有些人可能觉得应该是一种business上的原因。反正孩子有地方去就行了,管它叫什么,就像你看见一个人换了一件衣服一样,一般人不会探究为什么要换。老何知道为什么,尤其清楚这对Jerry意为着什么。
一场重大变化就这样静悄悄地发生了。
老何给A女士回了一封信,首先表示感谢他们在这个案子上做的努力,同时表示理解教育部的决定,不对学区处罚,以免影响到无辜的孩子。但是特别提出,希望OCR密切注意S女士与Maggie的动向,她们不能改头换面又到学区ASK里来。如果这样,这种处罚就变得完全没有意义了。而且建议政府考虑不应该让她们再从事Day Care工作,因为很难保证她们将来不再次歧视其他自闭症孩子。
老何心里踏实多了,但他很平静。Jerry仍然在YMCA与小朋友玩,打球,生气,浑然不知ASCC消失了。 |