J.D. v. Atlanta Public Schools: A Lesser Spirit Would Have Been Crushed Long Ago" by Pamela Wright & Peter Wright

J.D. v. Atlanta Public Schools: A Lesser Spirit Would Have Been Crushed Long Ago" by Pamela Wright & Peter Wright

Court Upholds Award of Compensatory Education in Draper v. Atlanta Public Schools: "Poor Man's Burlington Remedy" by Steven Wyner, Esq. - Wrightslaw.com

Court Upholds Award of Compensatory Education in Draper v. Atlanta Public Schools: "Poor Man's Burlington Remedy" by Steven Wyner, Esq. - Wrightslaw.com

ourt Upholds Award of Compensatory Education in Draper v. Atlanta:
"Poor Man's Burlington Remedy"
by Steven Wyner, Esq. & Marcy J. K. Tiffany, Esq.

Print this page

On March 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the decision of the District Court in favor of our client in Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System (11th Cir. 2008).

In 2007, the District Court had ordered the Atlanta Independent School System to pay Jarron's tuition at a private special education school for four years, or until he graduated with a regular high school diploma, as prospective compensatory education for their persistent failure to educate him.

The Atlanta Independent School System and Jarron appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to resolve different issues.

Prospective Compensatory Education in a Non-Public School

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit approved the District Court's award of compensatory education requiring the School System to fund prospective educational services provided by a private school. The Court specifically rejected the notion that the student had to prove that the public school system was incapable of providing the compensatory education.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 105 S.Ct. 1996 (1985) and Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16, 114 S.Ct. 361, 366 (1993), which held that school districts are required to reimburse parents for the costs of private placements in nonpublic schools when the public school failed to provide an appropriate education.

IDEA Does Not Provide Wealthier Parents with Greater Benefits Than Poorer Parents

Relying on these decisions, the Court reasoned that the District Court had the authority to require a public school to pay the cost of prospective compensatory education that would be provided by a private school.

The Court held that:

"The argument of the School System would provide those wealthier parents greater benefits under the Act than poorer parents. We do not read the Act as requiring compensatory awards of prospective education to be inferior to awards of reimbursement. The Act does not relegate families who lack the resources to place their children unilaterally in private schools to shouldering the burden of proving that the public school cannot adequately educate their child before those parents can obtain a placement in a private school. The Act instead empowers the district court to use broad discretion to fashion appropriate relief."

"Poor Man's Burlington Remedy" for Families That Cannot Afford Private School Tuition

The 11th Circuit fashioned a "poor man's Burlington remedy" for families that cannot afford to unilaterally remove their child from a public school and pay the cost of educating a child in a private school after the public school failed to provide a FAPE, while also incurring the expense of a due process hearing and subsequent litigation before they can recover the cost of tuition for the private placement.

Significance of Decision in Draper

Negotiating for Quality Compensatory Education Services

This decision should help special needs families and their counsel in negotiating settlements that provide quality educational remediation when their child has been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

When the school system fails to provide FAPE, the family can and should ask for compensatory education from a non public agency or school.

Public schools often offer to provide compensatory education in the form of supplemental educational services provided by their staff. Since the public school failed to provide FAPE previously, compensatory educational services provided in the future (prospectively) by school district staff is generally an ineffective remedy. The same teachers who previously failed to educate the child would be responsible for remediating their past failures.

Compensatory Education Requires More

School officials are fond of interpreting Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. (1982) as requiring that they provide the educational equivalent of a Chevrolet and not a Cadillac.

While the Supreme Court decision in Rowley requires school districts to provide special needs students with a "basic floor of opportunity" that provides "some educational benefit," the 11th Circuit held that compensatory awards must do more, and "should place children in the position that they would have been in but for the violation of the Act." Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System (11th Cir. 2008)

Simple Themes: Teaching a Child to Read
Simple themes win cases. In Jarron's case, the themes included the following: the school system failed to appropriately evaluate him, misdiagnosed him as mentally retarded when he had dyslexia, and failed to teach him to read.

If schools don't teach children the basic skills of reading, writing and math, these children will not have an opportunity to become productive, self sufficient members of society, as envisioned by the IDEA.

When you read the decisions from the U. S. District Court and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, you see this theme repeated over and over - that Jarron's reading skills were at the 3rd grade level, year after year, until he finally left school.

Resources: Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System

"A Lesser Spirit Would Have Been Crushed Long Ago" is the "inside story" of Jarron Draper's case. When the Judge issued a favorable decision in 2007, Jarron was 20 years old, stocking shelves at Target and working as a security guard. He couldn't read, earn a high school diploma, or fulfill his dream of attending college.

In A Lesser Spirit, you'll learn about the battles his family fought, how school employees viewed their responsibilities to Jarron, and who stepped up to the plate to represent him in the due process hearing. You'll learn about some legal issues - burden of proof, statute of limitations, and remedies for the failure to provide a child with a free appropriate education. You'll meet the dedicated and talented attorneys who also stepped up to the plate to help Jarron and his family when their case went to federal court.

Legal
Complaint in Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Public Schools (03/01/07)

Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School District (N.D. GA 2007) - The U. S. District Court finds, "Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Court concludes that APS failed to provide J.D. with a FAPE for the 2002-03,2003-04, and 2004-05 school years. APS failed to timely assess J.D. in the 2002-03 school year making it impossible for APS to design a proper IEP to meet J.D.'s unique needs." The Court ordered the school system to pay for four years of compensatory education at a private special education school.(03/20/07)
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System (11th Cir. 2008) - The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld the decision of the District Court and ordered Atlanta Public Schools to pay Jarron's tuition for four years at a private special education school as compensatory education for their persistent failure or refusal to educate him. (03/06/08) 
News
Atlanta school tuition case is ‘tip of iceberg’ - Dyslexic student awarded $38K toward education after being placed in special education classes in Atlanta Public Schools - Jones Day attorney David M. Monde, who represented Jarron Draper as co-counsel with Wyner & Tiffany, suggested that Jarron’s case is “the tip of the iceberg … given this kid’s needs are not particularly unique. There are an awful lot of other Jarrons out there in the system who just don’t get the help they need.” (Daily Report, 04/03/07)

Jones Day Obtains Pro Bono Eleventh Circuit Win for Special Education Student - Jones Day represented Jarron Draper, against the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) in an appeal of last year's order from U.S. District Court Judge Shoob that APS pay up to $156,000 in future private school tuition, plus transportation costs, because of APS' multiple violations of federal law. The Firm worked with California-based Wyner & Tiffany, a nationally-recognized firm in the area of special education law. (Jones Day, 03/08) 
Family Says School Misdiagnosed Boy As "Retarded" from www.wsbtv.com (includes link to video)

Atlanta Schools Told to Pay up to $136,600 For Private Tuition: Student's Dyslexia was Misdiagnosed by Kristina Torrcis - A federal judge has ordered Atlanta Public Schools to pay for a former student misdiagnosed as mentally disabled to go to private school to get his high school diploma.The student, Jarron Draper, now 20, has been out of school since June, stocking shelves at Target and working full time as a security guard while he and his family fought for an education that he hopes will get him into college. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 03/23/07) 

Alert! Civil Rights Case: Discrimination & Retaliation - Wrightslaw.com

Alert! Civil Rights Case: Discrimination & Retaliation - Wrightslaw.com

Violation of Civil Rights: Discrimination Under Section 504

In Jarron Draper's civil rights case, he "asserts that he suffers from injuries as a result of his educational deprivations that cannot be addressed by any amount of compensatory education" and is requesting damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On March 31, 2008, the U. S. District Court of Georgia issued a decisionthat denied the motion by the Atlanta Independent School District (“APS”) to dismiss Jarron’s civil rights claims that APS discriminated against him and retaliated against him and his family. In Jarron’s civil rights Complaint, he asserted that: APS incorrectly assessed Jarron as mentally retarded in fourth grade APS placed him in a functional program for the mildly intellectually delayed (“M.I.D.") APS failed to reassess him for over five years as required by law, and after learning that Jarron has dyslexia, APS moved him from the M.I.D. program into a 10th grade regular ed program with no support or remediation, which caused him to fail In this decision, the District Court held: "In addition to being denied appropriate educational services, J.D. also alleges that he suffers from stigmatization as a result of being improperly labeled 'mentally retarded' throughout most of his educational career.There is little doubt that the harm suffered by J.D. exceeded a mere denial of FAPE (emphasis added) ... the cumulative impact ... supports a reasonable inference that defendants may have exercisedbad faith or gross misjudgment (emphasis added) in denying J.D. access to a free and appropriate education" in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Read decision.

back to the top

Violation of Civil Rights: Retaliation Against Jarron and his Family

The court also refused to dismiss the retaliation claims, explaining that: "The Rehabilitation Act's anti-retaliation regulation provides that "[n]o recipient ... shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purposes of interfering with any right or privilege secured by [the Act], or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing ..." 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) Specifically discussing the retaliation claim, the court held that "a causal link is supported by plaintiff’s allegation that ‘[w]hen J.D. and his aunt challenged his placement in the M.I.D. program, ‘Faustina Haynes made [it] clear that he would always be M.I.D. and would never graduate from high school.’” The Court concluded that "plaintiff's and his family's requests for reassessment and their resort to administrative remedies triggered retaliatory conduct appears plausible." Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies According to Wyner and Tiffany, "APS had moved to dismiss the 504 claims on various grounds, including failure to exhaust and statute of limitations.  "With respect to exhaustion, the court held that the due process request mentioned the 504 claims, including the retaliation claim. Although the the administrative decision did not expressly rule on those claims, the decision does include relevant factual findings that go beyond what was necessary to find a denial of FAPE. The court further held that because of the comprehensive remedies received in the due process case, further exhaustion was excused as futile." Statute of Limitations "The court also denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds of the statute of limitations. APS argued that because the 504 claims had not been brought within two years of when they accrued, they were barred by the statute of limitations." "The court agreed with plaintiffs that the statute of limitations on the civil rights claims did not begin to run until the student was 18 years old. In any case, the statute was equitably stayed under federal law while the Jarron's family exhausted their claims under IDEA." Court Rejected Claims Based on Section 1983 "Although the court rejected various claims based on section 1983 (joining the growing number of courts that have rejected a 1983 claim premised on a violation of the IDEA), this case provides substantial support to plaintiffs who attempt to pursue civil rights claims under Section 504 related to underlying violations of the IDEA."

back to the top

Filing Due Process under IDEA if Civil Rights Claims by Wyner and Tiffany

According to Wyner and Tiffany, lead counsel in Jarron's cases, "The court’s analysis contains some very important guidance for plaintiffs whofile for due process for a denial of FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), but believe they may also have civil rights claims under Section 504 after exhausting. The Court found that "Plaintiffs due process hearing was not limited to whether J.D. was denied a FAPE ... [the] due process complaint cited Section 504, ADA, and state law grounds for relief ... specifically mentioning retaliation and defendants' 'willful disregard' of J.D.'s educational rights." "Even though hearing officers will refuse to rule on the civil rights claims on the ground that they do not have jurisdiction to decide such claims, it is important to include these claims in the due process request. It is also important to introduce evidence relevant to these claimsduring the due process hearing, to the extent that the hearing officer will allow it." We asked Marcy Tiffany of Wyner and Tiffany what will happen next? "The next step will be to engage in discovery, including depositions, and ultimately a jury trial. Along the way there will probably be some summary judgment motions and, of course, there is always the possibility of settlement." We will keep you posted on new developments in this unique case.

back to the top

Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Public Schools: Background &  Decisions

On March 20, 2007, the U. S. District Court of Georgia ordered the Atlanta Independent School System to pay Jarron Draper's tuition at a private special education school for four years, or until he graduated with a diploma from high school, as prospective compensatory education for their persistent failure to educate him. The Judge ruled that "Compensatory awards should compensate, and this means that they must do more than provide ‘some benefit’ as required by ordinary IEPs ..." Read decision The District Court held that:  "Compensatory education involves discretionary, prospective, injunctive relief crafted by a court to remedy what might be termed an educational deficit created by an educational agency's failure over a given period of time to provide a FAPE to a student ... "Compensatory awards should compensate, and this means that they must do more than provide ‘some benefit’ as required by ordinary IEPs ... compensatory education is necessary to preserve a handicapped child's right to a free education." Appeal The Atlanta Independent School System and Jarron appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to resolve different legal issues.  On March 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the decision of the District Court in Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System (11th Cir. 2008). The Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the District Court's award of compensatory education that required the school system to pay prospective educational services provided by a private school. (11th Cir. 2008). The Court specifically rejected the notion that the student had to prove that the public school system was incapable of providing the compensatory education. Read decision. Relying on decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 105 S. Ct. 1996 (1985) andFlorence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 114 S. Ct. (1993), the Court of Appeals affirmed that the District Court had the authority to require a public school to pay the cost ofprospective compensatory education that would be provided by a private school. "Poor Man's Burlington Remedy" Read about the significane of Jarron's IDEA case in Poor Man's BurlingtonRemedy by Stephen Wyner & Marcy Tiffany.  "A Lesser Spirit Would Have Been Crushed Years Ago" To learn more about Jarron, his family, and their struggles, read A Lesser Spirit Would Have Been Crushed Years Ago by Pamela Wright and Peter Wright.

Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) for Autism - West Palm Beach Autism & Education | Examiner.com

Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) for Autism - West Palm Beach Autism & Education | Examiner.com

Unusual sensory responses are relatively common in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and often one of the earliest indicators of autism in childhood. In fact, sensory issues are now included in the DSM-5 symptom criteria for restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities (RRB). When present, sensory problems may interfere with performance in many developmental and functional domains across home and school contexts. Best practice guidelines indicate that when needed, educational programs for children with ASD should integrate an appropriately structured physical and sensory milieu in order to accommodate any unique sensory processing challenges.

Sensory integration therapy (SIT) is often used individually or as a component of a broader program of occupational therapy for children with ASD. While sensory activities may be helpful as part of an overall educational program, there is no reliable and convincing empirical evidence that sensory-based treatments have specific effects. A recent study published in the journal Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders systematically analyzed intervention studies involving the use of sensory integration therapy. A total of 25 studies were described in terms of: (a) participant characteristics, (b) assessments used to identify sensory deficits or behavioral functions, (c) dependent variables, (d) intervention procedures, (e) intervention outcomes, and (f) certainty of evidence. Analyses indicated that 3 of the reviewed studies provided evidence that SIT was effective, 8 studies found mixed results, and 14 studies reported no benefits related to SIT. Many of the reviewed studies, including the 3 studies reporting positive results, had serious methodological flaws. The study concluded that the current evidence-base does not support the use of SIT in the education and treatment of children with ASD. According to one of the authors, “Rigorous, methodologically sound studies do not indicate that it helps and, in fact, the majority of studies that were reviewed reported no benefits for children with ASD.” In sum, this review indicates that SIT does not qualify as an evidence-based, or scientifically-based, intervention and that the results support the omission of SIT from several recent peer-reviewed lists of evidenced-based practices for children with ASD. Likewise, the National Autism Center’s National Standards Project identifies SIT as an “Unestablished Treatment,” for which there is little or no evidence in the scientific literature that permits a conclusion about the effectiveness of this intervention with individuals with ASD.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also issued a policy statement indicating that support is lacking for SIT. The group’s Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine and Council on Children with Disabilities recommends that because there is no universally accepted framework for diagnosis, sensory processing disorder generally should not be diagnosed. They also conclude that although occupational therapy with the use of sensory-based therapies may be acceptable as one of the components of a comprehensive treatment plan, “parents should be informed that the amount of research regarding the effectiveness of sensory integration therapy is limited and inconclusive.”

Consistent with the Academy’s recommendation, interventions to address sensory related problems, when utilized, should be integrated at various levels into the student’s individualized educational program (IEP). Comprehensive educational programming may also include consultation with knowledgeable professionals (e.g. occupational therapists, speech/language therapists, and physical therapists, adaptive physical educators) to provide guidance about potential interventions for children whose sensory processing or motoric difficulties interfere with educational performance.

All interventions and treatments should be based on sound theoretical constructs, robust methodologies, and empirical studies of effectiveness. Different approaches to intervention have been found to be effective for children with autism, and no comparative research has been conducted that demonstrates one approach is superior to another. The selection of specific interventions should be based on goals developed from a comprehensive assessment of each child’s unique needs and family preferences. A more detailed discussion of assessment domains (e.g. communication, social, sensory, academic) can be found in A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Schools.

Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., Lydon, H., Streusand, W., … Giesbers, S. (2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1004–1018. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.006

American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine and Council on Children with Disabilities, Policy Statement (2012). Sensory Integration Therapies for Children With Developmental and Behavioral Disorders. Pediatrics, 1186-1189. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-0876

National Autism Center (2009). National Standards Project-Addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.

Lee A. Wilkinson, PhD is the author of the award-winning book, A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Schools, published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. He is also editor of a new Volume in the APA School Psychology Book Series, Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Assessment and Intervention in Schools.

If you enjoy reading my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page to receive notice when new ones are published. You can also follow me at http://bestpracticeautism.com.

Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) for Autism - West Palm Beach Autism & Education | Examiner.com

Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) for Autism - West Palm Beach Autism & Education | Examiner.com

Unusual sensory responses are relatively common in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and often one of the earliest indicators of autism in childhood. In fact, sensory issues are now included in the DSM-5 symptom criteria for restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities (RRB). When present, sensory problems may interfere with performance in many developmental and functional domains across home and school contexts. Best practice guidelines indicate that when needed, educational programs for children with ASD should integrate an appropriately structured physical and sensory milieu in order to accommodate any unique sensory processing challenges.

Sensory integration therapy (SIT) is often used individually or as a component of a broader program of occupational therapy for children with ASD. While sensory activities may be helpful as part of an overall educational program, there is no reliable and convincing empirical evidence that sensory-based treatments have specific effects. A recent study published in the journal Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders systematically analyzed intervention studies involving the use of sensory integration therapy. A total of 25 studies were described in terms of: (a) participant characteristics, (b) assessments used to identify sensory deficits or behavioral functions, (c) dependent variables, (d) intervention procedures, (e) intervention outcomes, and (f) certainty of evidence. Analyses indicated that 3 of the reviewed studies provided evidence that SIT was effective, 8 studies found mixed results, and 14 studies reported no benefits related to SIT. Many of the reviewed studies, including the 3 studies reporting positive results, had serious methodological flaws. The study concluded that the current evidence-base does not support the use of SIT in the education and treatment of children with ASD. According to one of the authors, “Rigorous, methodologically sound studies do not indicate that it helps and, in fact, the majority of studies that were reviewed reported no benefits for children with ASD.” In sum, this review indicates that SIT does not qualify as an evidence-based, or scientifically-based, intervention and that the results support the omission of SIT from several recent peer-reviewed lists of evidenced-based practices for children with ASD. Likewise, the National Autism Center’s National Standards Project identifies SIT as an “Unestablished Treatment,” for which there is little or no evidence in the scientific literature that permits a conclusion about the effectiveness of this intervention with individuals with ASD.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also issued a policy statement indicating that support is lacking for SIT. The group’s Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine and Council on Children with Disabilities recommends that because there is no universally accepted framework for diagnosis, sensory processing disorder generally should not be diagnosed. They also conclude that although occupational therapy with the use of sensory-based therapies may be acceptable as one of the components of a comprehensive treatment plan, “parents should be informed that the amount of research regarding the effectiveness of sensory integration therapy is limited and inconclusive.”

Consistent with the Academy’s recommendation, interventions to address sensory related problems, when utilized, should be integrated at various levels into the student’s individualized educational program (IEP). Comprehensive educational programming may also include consultation with knowledgeable professionals (e.g. occupational therapists, speech/language therapists, and physical therapists, adaptive physical educators) to provide guidance about potential interventions for children whose sensory processing or motoric difficulties interfere with educational performance.

All interventions and treatments should be based on sound theoretical constructs, robust methodologies, and empirical studies of effectiveness. Different approaches to intervention have been found to be effective for children with autism, and no comparative research has been conducted that demonstrates one approach is superior to another. The selection of specific interventions should be based on goals developed from a comprehensive assessment of each child’s unique needs and family preferences. A more detailed discussion of assessment domains (e.g. communication, social, sensory, academic) can be found in A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Schools.

Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., Lydon, H., Streusand, W., … Giesbers, S. (2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1004–1018. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.006

American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine and Council on Children with Disabilities, Policy Statement (2012). Sensory Integration Therapies for Children With Developmental and Behavioral Disorders. Pediatrics, 1186-1189. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-0876

National Autism Center (2009). National Standards Project-Addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.

Lee A. Wilkinson, PhD is the author of the award-winning book, A Best Practice Guide to Assessment and Intervention for Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Schools, published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. He is also editor of a new Volume in the APA School Psychology Book Series, Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Assessment and Intervention in Schools.

If you enjoy reading my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page to receive notice when new ones are published. You can also follow me at http://bestpracticeautism.com.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: When Our Issues Started

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: When Our Issues Started

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Sent This Letter To The Superintendent In 2008 He Dropped Out Soon After

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Sent This Letter To The Superintendent In 2008 He Dropped Out Soon After

I just sent this to my superintendent, special education director, special education coordinator, autism specialist, principal, vice principal, and three school board members.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

 

My husband and I had some concerns after we left our evaluation meeting yesterday.  We feel that Jake needs an immediate change of placement.  We feel that Jake is not benefiting from being in Joyce Jackson's Resource Room and having Joyce Jackson be his case manager.

 

Joy Rose stated that we wouldn't be discussing change of placement until after evaluations, but I don't believe that is in Jake's best interest.  We are gradually losing him and I don't think a 60-65 day wait is in his best interest.

 

We spoke with Jake last night about his refusal to do what she told him.  She stated that she told him three times to do something and he refused.  She stated that she had to stand over him and make him do it. 

 

We asked Jake why he refused to do what he was told.  He told us that she only asked him one time and that he told her the rule was that he was to type if it were longer than 5-8 sentences.  What she was asking him to type was three sentences.  He is a rule follower and he believed that the rule was 5-8 sentences.

 

Jake has never complained about a teacher.  Even when we were having issues with teachers he would tell us that they weren't that bad.  He doesn't see people's intentions, good or bad, and expects that everyone lives by the same codes that he does.

 

Jake has been very anxious lately.  He has been irritable and extremely overwhelmed.  His psychiatrist was going to take him off of the medication that helps with his anxiety until he spoke with Jake.  He realized that school was too overwhelming for Jake to take that step.

 

Jake has liver enzyme tests done every four months to make sure that the medication is not affecting his liver.  The last two tests showed that his liver enzymes were three times the normal.  His psychiatrist is doing a consult with a liver specialist from John Hopkins.  I'm sure that he won't be able to take the medication after this.

 

The fact that my child has to take medication in order to attend school has always been a worry.  The fact that my child's liver could be damaged from that medication is outrageous.

 

While we were speaking to Jake he told us that he didn't like Ms. Jackson.  I understand that with typical kids that is normal and that they need to learn to deal with all kinds of different individuals.  Jake is not typical and it is the first time in 15 years that he has ever said that about another person.  That is a major issue.

 

I discussed this issue with Jerry Keimig in 2005 and told him that my son wanted to die because school was just too much for him. 

I met with Mr. Keimig for 15 minutes. I told him that I had read that most autistic children only respond to positive teaching. He told me that I couldn’t believe everything that I read. I told him that I wanted my son in a class with a more positive teacher or in a modified curriculum. He told me that he may not be able to help my son in the future. I told him that my son was depressed and that being in this class was making it worse. He told me that it was a good life lesson for my son

 

Jake no longer has a BIP because the district felt that it was not necessary.  I told them that I would agree to that as long as his educators were highly trained in his disability and understood the difference between behaviors that are caused by his disability and behaviors that are typical.  I believe that they do not understand this.

 

Over and over again we are told that Jake is resistant to this or refusing to do that.  No one ever understands that it is due to his disability and that they need to understand why he is exhibiting this behavior.  Perhaps if his teachers were trained and functional BIP were in place this would not happen.

 

Jake has been told by teachers that his mom is making his life harder.  That he doesn't have a writing disability and that his mom is making rules.  He believes these people.  That not only makes my job harder, but it makes the district's job harder as well because he is then resistant to the help that he so desperately needs.

 

Ms. Jackson is probably a fine teacher for children that are ED.  Jake is not.  Jake has autism and that requires a different type of dedication, patience, tolerance, and personality. 

 

Jake was given an Alpha Smart last year and it was kept in his 7th hour class and Ms. Jackson had to figure out how to use it each time that it was taken out of the closet that it was kept in.  Therefore, Jake believed that it did not work.  I stated this at the IEP meeting.  Finally, Ms Jackson let Jake use a class computer, which I had suggested in middle school, and told Jake that "I have figured out a loophole around your mom's rules."  That is unacceptable to me.  Joyce Jackson admitted in the IEP meeting that she had said this.  Jake came home and told me that I was making things harder for him because that is the impression that he received from this teacher.  My advocacy for Jake should never be discussed with Jake without my permission and should never be used as an excuse to find loopholes.  

 

I asked Jake why he was resistive to using the laptop this year.  He said that it takes so long for it to boot up. This is a child with organizational issues and a child that can not follow more than two step directions.  While he is getting his computer set up he is not being able to hear what the teacher is saying or what is going on in the classroom.  He asked why he couldn't just use the computer in the classroom like he did before.  So, Jake is not resistive to using AT, as is the district's position, Jake is resistive to using something that he feels is making things even harder.

 

His present level states that the district feels he is resistive.  Once again, this should be addressed in a BIP.  They put the following in his IEP in May, "Jake has been resistive to carrying the Quick Pad to classes."  I asked that it be changed because the statement was not accurate.  In August we had a meeting and the following is taken from my notes, "As for the issue about the assistive technology, they added a sentence that stated, "Mrs. Tucker believes that this was because he believed it did not work."

 

I told the team that I disagreed with that statement.  The device didn't work in Jake's mind and that's why he didn't want to use it.  He was not resistive to carrying the Quick Pad to classes.  He was resistive to working with a machine that didn't work.  The team refused to take that out.  I was told that I am the expert on Jake at home and the district is the expert on Jake at school.

 

I would like to state that I find that offensive and incorrect.  If the district were an expert on Jake, at school, all of his teachers would be HIGHLY trained in his disability.  I wouldn't have to go to meetings and explain Jake's actions, issues, etc if the team at school was an expert on my son.  If the team were an expert on my son, they wouldn't have put him into a class that A) he was not qualified for and B) was totally inappropriate for a student with autism.  If the team were an expert on my son they would not have recommended an art class for a child with dysgraphia or a music class that he surely would have been overwhelmed in.  This is not the first time that the team has suggested a class that was totally inappropriate for Jake.  It was disastrous before and I'm quite sure that it would have been again if Jake had qualified for the 1st hour class."

 

It also states the following, which once again proves that the district can't differentiate between typical behaviors and behaviors due to his disability.  "Small group testing was changed to "Access to small group testing with rephrasing of directions."  We had a very long discussion on what that meant.  Joy Rose stated, "Historically Jake has refused to take tests in a small group and it resulted in meltdowns and shutdowns."  I would like to know where that information came from because it is totally inaccurate and should not be in Jake's file. 

 

Jake always took tests in small groups at Prairie View.  It was no big deal and it lead to higher test scores.  When he entered Pleasant Lea they did not give him tests in small groups.  His IEP stated that they were supposed to.  Then they finally agreed to do it, but they asked if him if he wanted to.  Most times he said no.  That is not a refusal.  That is a child being given a choice and choosing. 

 

Had the district implemented his IEP throughout his ten years in this district, this would not be an issue right now.  I have no problem with Jake taking tests in the classroom as long as he understands what the test is asking of him and he is able to take it.  Making a child sit in the hallway is not my idea of small group testing and that is what has been offered on more than one occasion." 

 

On that same discussion, I would like my notes added to the district's conference notes.  The Lee's Summit School District refuses to allow parents to tape record meetings and it is not acceptable that the only conference notes in my child's file would be from the district's viewpoint.  That is not allowing me to be a full participant on my son's IEP team.  I been not been allowed to be a full participant in the past and I would like to see that change. 

 

Also, I have been in contact with OSEP and my contact told me that it was inappropriate for the district to make the statement that the district is the expert on Jake at school and I am the expert at home.  They also told me that Jake should have a dual diagnosis.  One would be educational autism and the other would be ld because of his written language deficit and his dysgraphia.  The team at the meeting yesterday told me that Missouri doesn't do that and I advised that I was contacting OSEP today to ask her why she would advise me to do that when it is not something my state does.  She also advised me that she would like for me to seek mediation and I told I didn't feel that we were there yet and would like to handle this among ourselves.  She is waiting for my report from my meeting yesterday.

 

I have repeatedly asked for help for my son.  He is 15 years old.  By the time that his evaluations are done he will have 2 1/2 years left of school.  He has 2 1/2 years to make up for the last 10 and to make progress.  That is not much time and revisiting the same issues year after year continues to rob him of his future. 

 

Thank you.