Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 22 of 51has informed PDE, part of their advocacy will include submittinggrant proposals to PDE and seeking funding for programs thatsupport their special-education goals. (Id.) During the life ofthe Settlement Agreement, PDE agrees to review such grantproposals. (Id.) If the proposals submitted by Plaintiffs’counsel are consistent with PDE’s obligations, priorities, andgoals, and do not jeopardize PDE’s own grant proposals, then PDEwill support such grants and take reasonable steps to assistPlaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining the grants. (Id.)III. SUMMARY OF PROOFS, AFFIDAVITS, AND TESTIMONYClass members and their parents had the opportunity tofile written objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement byJune 10, 2005. Nineteen objections were either filed or receivedby the Court. All objectors were given the opportunity toproduce evidence and be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Thefollowing proofs, affidavits, and testimony were produced by theparties to support approval of the Settlement Agreement.A. Experts1. Christopher Kliewer, Ph.D., Associate Professor ofSpecial Education at the University of NorthernIowaThe parties submitted the declaration of ChristopherKliewer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Special Education at the22
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 23 of 51University of Northern Iowa, to support their joint motion forfinal approval of the Settlement Agreement. Dr. Kliewer servedas an expert in an earlier phase of the litigation and isfamiliar with the Settlement Agreement. Based on a substantialbody of scholarly and empirical research, Dr. Kliewer stated thatspecial needs children perform better, both academically andsocially, when educated in regular classrooms then when educatedin a non-inclusive setting. (Dr. Christopher Kliewer’s Decl. 3-8, doc. no. 302.) Moreover, Dr. Kliewer indicated that greatdisparities exist among the states in placing children withspecial needs, which is evidenced by data that the United StatesDepartment of Education collected in 2002. (Id. at 14.)According to that data, Pennsylvania educated only 35% of itsspecial education students (aged 6-21) in general educationclassrooms for 80% of a day or more. (Id.) Comparably, Vermontand New Hampshire educated approximately 80% and 75% of itsspecial education students (aged 6-21), respectively, in generaleducation classrooms for 80% of a day or more. (Id.) Thisdisparity helps to demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s practices foreducating children with disabilities are not reflective of whatexperts know about “best practices.” (Id.)23
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?