|
Paul Kelly Strikes Again
SRO Paul Kelly Makes His Own Law
Before our Connors parents panic, we (SLA, the NY COPAA group and other groups) are preparing to fight this outrage.
State Review Officer Paul Kelly has been singled out by special education attorneys (see article on COPAA conference below) , the Wall Street Journal (July, 2007)and, most recently, by WABC-TV as being severely, unapologetically and unflinchingly biased against parents in his rulings.
The State Review Office is the next stop up the legal ladder if either party, parent or school district, disagrees with the IHO ruling. It is supposed to be an impartial office where special education law should reign.
Paul Kelly, who has been found to be cohabitating with school board lawyer Kate Surgalla (W.S.J.), has been running amok in decisions against parents -- some numbers put his anti-parent decisions at a whopping 87%.
'Connors reimbursement' occurs when parents with demonstrably modest incomes can have tuition paid directly to a "Carter" school instead of laying out the funds and being reimbursed. This is different from 'Carter reimbursement' where the reimbursement monies go directly to the parents who have laid out the tuition.
In the recent case SRO 09-001. Paul Kelly decided that " the IDEA does provide that a [school district] reimburse parents but does not provide for the prospective tuition that is implied by Connors."
This decision is contrary to Mr. Kelly's owm decisions in prior cases. For example, Mr. Kelly, in SRO 08-050, states that "[i]n Connors, the Court ... discussed the concept of 'prospective' tuition payment after the Court made a finding that the school district conceded that it could not provide an appropriate education for the student and that the private placement could".
In 04-101, Kelly found against the parent (typical of him) in a Connors case. But he never mentioned his perceived lack of IDEA backing for Connors. In Kelly's 07-050, ditto! The list of Kelly's acceptance of Connors goes on.
It seems that this new ruling is part of some new-found religious fervor to deprive less affluent parents and their children of their special education rights.
The New York team from COPAA (see below) vow to face down Paul Kelly and end his litany of bias and corruption. As a first step, 09-001 will likely be appealed to Federal District Court.
|
|
Supreme Court's Forest Grove Case More Insidious Than Originally Thought |
How It Started
The child involved in this Supreme Court case, identified as TA, attended the Forest Grove (Oregon) school district. TA's parents, originally asked for an evaluation for special education in TA's freshman year. They repeated the request in TA's senior year. The district found TA ineligible for special ed services both times. The parents then removed TA and placed him in a private school and sought reimbursement of the tuition from the school district. The school district refused to reimburse the tuition to the family.
An Impartial hearing took place. The parents prevailed. The IHO ordered the district to pay TA's tuition. [Oregon does not have an SRO. Everything beyond the IHO goes to Federal court].
The Federal District and 9th Circuit Courts
The school district appealed to the federal court. The Federal District court ruled that the IHO was wrong in awarding tuition because TA had never received special education services under the school district's auspices.
The parents appealed this decision to the Circuit Court. The 9th Circuit Court chided the lower court: TA's claim could not be dismissed for that reason. The IDEA says that, if a child is receiving special education services in a public forum, the parent must disclose intention to move a child to a private school. And further, that the disclosure must be made either at an IEP meeting or by written notice to the school.
The problem with the TA case is that, in the public venue, TA was evaluated as not needing special education services and received none.
Now its up to the Supreme Court.
Two Views of the IDEA
Whether or not TA's claim is paid rests on one of two diametrically opposite interpretations of the IDEA.
Forest Grove believes that there is no notice requirement because the IDEA does not permit reimbursement under the TA circumstances (not having been classified and not having received special education services prior to his removal from public school).
In the view of disabilities groups, the IDEA statement under which Congress permits tuition reimbursement, (namely a child receiving special education services that opts for FAPE in a private school) is but one example of how reimbursement can be gotten.
Two Object Lessons
One thing to glean from this case is to never ever trust the School District to be the sole evaluators of your child. Evaluators for the district know what's at stake and it is against their collective interests to be objective in their decisions.
The other lesson is more breath-taking (in the negative sense). If a child, who receives no special education services in a public venue, moves into a private venue, there may be no recourse to reimbursement under IDEA. Now imagine -- the school districts just have to deny all children special education services and the burden of paying for private schooling vanishes. That is, if the Supreme Court rules against TA. |
|
SLA Workshop
Selecting a Residential Placement |
|
March 25, 2009 at 5PM
Renowned expert in school and residential placements John Powers will be presenting a workshop on 'How to Select a Residential Placement for your Child'.
Mr. Powers has been consulting for over 25 years to families who are thinking of, or in the process of, a residential placement for their child.
The workshop will be held in the
SLA Conference Center
Suite 303
155 West 72nd Street
NYC
Registration is filling up. To pre-register, go to:
|
|
11th Annual Meeting of COPAA |
The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) met in Washington, DC for its 11th annual conference.
This organization is one of the most resourceful groups in the special education world, which is one of the reasons SLA had a strong presence. The four-day conference included skills training, news on the latest legislation and pending bills, and instruction in federal court appeals.
One of the interesting aspects was the New York state contigent of 40 people. We all joined in a private dinner to enable us to speak freely and frankly about problems we have in NYS. The SLA contigent was five professionals and three spouses, so we were a strong presence there.
Of all topics, Paul Kelly, the SRO, was a major topic of discussion. (See lead article above).
The second major topic is the Suozzi report (Taxpayer Relief suggestions), mentioned here in earlier editions.
Third, and related to both others, was the possibility that the SRO would be removed as a layer of intervention. The streamlining would result in IHO decisions being contested in the Federal court system, which is the major leagues and where districts' frivolous appeals would be met with strong skepticism. | |
End Notes
This Newsletter is intended to inform parents of, and professionals who work with, special education needs children of legislative, medical, educational and social facets of the special ed process.
It seems that the number of threats to special education multiply every time we turn around. And its the kids who are the prey to these elected and appointed villains. We report these threats and are sometimes overwhelmed ourselves.
We must look at a bigger picture. Though processes are threatened and bureaucrats seem to put up ingenious new roadblocks, every so often we hear about one of "our children" who graduates from grade school to do well, from high school, maybe going to a really great college, maybe from a college graduation. We hear that one of "our kids" has turned out to be a gentleman or lady, and has his/her own hard work to thank for it!
SLA gets announcements and invitations that leave a happy tear in our collective eye. That's what makes it worthwhile.
Sincerely,
Susan Luger
Susan Luger Associates, Inc.
|
|
|
| Infants' Gestures Foretell Better Vocabularies |
|
|
Language Acquisition May Being Before Children Talk
Ever see your 3-year old imitate a rude hand gesture from his/her car seat -- one that you just saluted another driver with?
Researchers show that a 14-month-old child who gestures more will go on to have a higher vocabulary by kindergarten.
Researchers videotaped interactions between 14-month olds and their caregivers. Then the researchers tallied the number of gestures that had clear meaning -- such as pointing to a cup or nodding his/her head.
Later, these kids were tested at age 4-1/2 for vocabulary. Children who had gestured more at a younger age scored higher on vocabulary tests.
These findings show that language acquisition begins well before children start to say much.
This article is a summary of an earlier article in Science News.
|
| Share this Newsletter with your friends and colleagues by forwarding this email to them. |
|
|
| If you learn of any newsworthy item related to Special Education, contact us with the information. |
|
|
|
|
