The Story of Sheila Hopper Retaliation:
The Dark Side of Special Education
How Education Officials Retaliated Against A Student Advocate
When Congress passed the special education mandate in 1975, it had no idea what kind of organizations would evolve to implement it. Over the years some of these organizations have become powerful bureaucracies with needs that are frequently at odds with the people they serve. At their worst, such organizations can become dysfunctional. The story within the story of Sheila Hopper is about one such system.
Perhaps nothing more separates the officials who control the special education apparatus from the consumers they are supposed to serve than the ugly reality of retaliation. Many stories are known. This is one of the more horrific.
This is not a new story, but it has not been widely told, and it does not seem to have an end. It is the story of a highly professional, knowledgeable, and resourceful teacher who knew too much. She knew too much about federal law, she knew too much about her school district. And, she cared too much.
Shelia Hopper, a resource specialist in the Los Angeles Unified School District, could not ignore the fact that a 5th grade child could not read, write, or even spell her name. In 1988, the child was referred to Sheila for testing. It should have been an easy task to provide the student with needed services. But, when a large bureaucracy is involved, with its hierarchy of power and jealously guarded prerogatives, what should be easy is often impossible. In this case, the needs of the bureaucrats took precedence over the needs of the child.
The special educators that Sheila went to for help did not agree with her that the child needed special education services. Without consulting with Sheila or the child’s parents, a school psychologist declared the student ineligible for special education services. Because she believed the child was being denied services illegally, Sheila filed a complaint against the district in May 1989.
This was not just any district, but the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LAUSD is big and powerful—a $5 billion enterprise, with relatively unlimited resources. When she filed a complaint against them, Sheila gained a powerful and vindictive adversary. Then Sheila realized that the district routinely held IEP meetings without the classroom teacher present. She filed another complaint. The district was found to be “out of compliance.” When by 1992 the district failed to implement needed changes, Sheila filed yet a third complaint.
The retaliation started long before Sheila’s last complaint. Perhaps the most insidious was in the work environment, where according to Sheila, she experienced a myriad of subtle pressures. Her split duty between two schools continued beyond the point where a single assignment was warranted, her caseload was allowed to grow beyond the mandated limit, causing her waiting list of kids to be tested to stretch to 10 months. But the worst was yet to come.
In March of 1990, Sheila was charged with child abuse. The police could find no evidence of such a crime by a teacher with an impeccable record of performance that stretched for over 15 years of honorable duty.
Charges were immediately dropped. However, the district persevered with its own “investigation.”
According to Sheila, over the next two months the school principal called three or four of her students into the office five, six, or seven times to “interview” them about Sheila. The students were given jelly beans to keep these discussions secret. For some it was a terrifying experience. One child started to cry as he asked Sheila if the principal was trying to get her fired. Another started having nightmares.
Finally the district made its move. Based on the charges that had been earlier dropped, Sheila was given a 15 day suspension, a transfer, and an unsatisfactory performance review. In response, Sheila filed a grievance and in June 1990 the case went into arbitration.
Not only did the arbitrator find in Sheila’s favor, in a rare departure from normal practice, he wrote a scathing commentary citing “professional misconduct” on the part of the district.
As a result, Sheila filed charges against the principal with the California Teacher Credentialing Commission. The Commission recommended a 10 day suspension of the principal’s credentials. The district appealed. The case went before an administrative law judge, with the California Attorney General’s office prosecuting against the district.
A nine day hearing ensued, the outcome of which was a finding that the district did not retaliate against Sheila. Interestingly, the judge had been asked and refused to excuse himself from the case because of an unusual circumstance. He knew Sheila’s husband, who is a medical doctor. An unusual request by the judge had been turned down by Dr. Hopper in his capacity as an HMO manager.
Most people would give up at this point. Fortunately for the rest of us, Sheila did not. She finally got an attorney. He succeeded in getting her a trial before a jury.
In November 1994, following a five day trial, a jury deliberated for an hour and a half and decided in favor of Sheila, finding that the school principal had indeed retaliated against her by falsely accusing her of child abuse. She was awarded $50,000 in general damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. But the district, fueled by a limitless supply of taxpayer money, refused to accept the jury’s decision. They appealed. The jury decision was then overturned by a three judge federal panel.
Sheila is now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to restore the jury conviction and her good name. She will find out in 1997 if the Supreme Court will hear her case. The total spent by LAUSD to prevail over one lone resource room teacher? $565,000, and counting.
Epilogue
What, our readers may wonder, ever became of the child who inspired this incredible story of retaliation? She was of course, placed in a special education program. Sheila was right all along.
[Note: See issue 11 of The Observer for a follow-up story.]
©Special Education Observer