ILNews

IBA: IndyBar Revitalizes School Education Advocacy Program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Andrew Campbell

campbell-andrew-mug Campbell

This fall, the IndyBar Pro Bono Standing Committee will rejuvenate its School Education Advocacy Program through collaboration with FosterEd, a project of the National Center for Youth Law. For more than five years, IndyBar volunteers have helped students in Marion County address a variety of challenges in the education process, particularly issues surrounding proper implementation and execution of Individual Education Plans (IEPs). In September, FosterEd is launching FosterEd: Marion County, a new initiative aimed at improving the educational outcomes of the approximately 2,500 Marion County foster children. IndyBar is excited to partner volunteer advocates with this program to bolster the School Education Advocacy Program, and is eager to involve more IndyBar members, specifically law students and paralegals.

While most children have an educational support structure to serve their educational needs, the acute unmet need for assistance in meeting the educational challenges facing foster youth is striking. Recent studies show that approximately 75% of foster children are behind grade level, 67% will be suspended from school, and foster youth are twice as likely to drop out of school. These educational outcomes can have long-lasting societal impacts, as 22% of former foster youth experience homelessness and 17% receive some form of public assistance. More troubling, many former foster youth spend time incarcerated, and the unemployment rate for former foster youth tops 50%.

FosterEd: Marion County is a joint project of the Indiana Youth Institute (IYI), Marion County Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates aimed at combating these poor educational outcomes by ensuring that foster children have the resources, support, and opportunities they need for a healthy and productive future. The project is being launched in partnership with a broad array of local organizations, including the IndyBar, Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County Juvenile Courts, About Special Kids, INSOURCE, Connected by 25’s Education Success Program!, Disability Legal Services of Indiana, and Youth Law T.E.A.M.

IndyBar volunteer advocates will contribute to the FosterEd initiative by supporting the educational success of children with special needs through lay advocacy intended to build the capacity of foster youth and their families. Volunteers will be paired with foster youth living in Marion County who have unmet special education needs and will work with the student, family, caregiver, and school system to secure appropriate educational opportunities. This advocacy may take many forms, but will center on ensuring proper implementation of IEPs and related special education issues. Because the advocacy almost always is not traditional “legal” assistance, it is specifically designed for all IndyBar members, including attorneys, law students, and paralegals.

Training for the IndyBar School Education Advocacy Program is being offered on Wednesday, September 14, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the IndyBar office, 135 North Pennsylvania Street, Ste 1500. This training will introduce the agencies, procedures, and processes a volunteer will encounter when advocating for a child with special educational needs. Education law and entitlement programs and rights will briefly be covered. For those who cannot attend this offering, DVD’s will be available for check-out through the IndyBar. Please register for the complimentary training at www.indybar.org. Program volunteers must be members of the Indianapolis Bar Association (membership applications are also available at www.indybar.org).•

Andrew Campbell is an associate with Baker & Daniels LLP and the chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Pro Bono.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT