The child in this case attended Faison six hours a day, five days a week, thus receiving 30 hours of one-on-one instruction each week. His parents and older sister all received training in ABA methods, and used the ABA methods with the child at home.
After attending Faison for 8 months, the child could stay on task independently for about five minutes and could quietly wait unattended for approximately 30 seconds.
The parent's primary concern about sending the child to the public preschool was that the class size would prevent the child from receiving the amount of one-on-one instruction required to keep him focused and on task, since the school did not guarantee the child a full-time aide. The parents therefore rejected the plan, choosing instead to leave the child at the Faison School.
The officer determined that given the number of other children in the pubic school, the requirement to work independently, the natural distractions at the school and the child's lack of communication skills, social behavior, inability to stay on task for more than a few minutes, his fear of other children and his severe propensity to self stimulate and his inability to learn when self stimulating, the child's ability to access the curriculum offered at the school would be so impaired as to deny him educational benefit.
The hearing officer also found that the plan did not provide the child with a free appropriate education because it did not include extended school year services.
The hearing officer concluded that the Faison School was an appropriate placement for the child and that the School Board was therefore obligated to pay for the cost of his placement at the school.
The school board filed an appeal in Federal court and won the next round and the parents appealed that ruling. The high court determined that the hearing officer's rulings were correct and stated, "Because we conclude that the district court erred by failing to give
deference to the decision of the state hearing officer, we reverse the district court's order and we remand for reconsideration consistent with the principles set forth in this opinion."
The school board appealed the decision in the US Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which ruled in favor of the board. The parents appealed that decision and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruled in favor of the child and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions for further proceedings.
When schools fail to comply with the IDEA, subsequent litigation costs can be massive, as evidenced by an editorial in the May 4, 2005, Chattanoogan, from angry Tennessee tax payer, John T Dixion titled, "Outraged Over School Spending In Autism Case."
"As a county homeowner and taxpayer," he wrote, "I'm outraged at the discovery that the school system has spent $2,280,000 plus in attorney fees and court costs, etc. on a lawsuit to fight with a family rather than provide what the student needs to finish his education."
"According to County Commissioner," Mr Dixon said, "this whole matter could have been settled (and the family compensated for out of pocket expenses) to the tune of $150,000 (a mere 6.5% of what has been spent to date)."
"The school system doesn't need more money, it needs people in charge who know how to be good stewards of what they are already getting," he concluded.
For more information for injured parties at Lawyers and Settlements
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/school_disability.html
By Evelyn Pringle
evelyn.pringle@sbcglobal.net
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).