|
|
|
Susan Luger Associates Newsletter |
Happenings in the World of Special Education July 2010
Follow us on Facebook! |
|
Our new website is up! Visit our new website.
Our new website is up! Visit our new website.
|
Our new website is up! Visit our new website. |
|
Genetics of Autism May Revolve About Missing Elements
Large scale study points to unique genetic variations in each case of autism
A large scale study finds that each person with autism may have his/her own genetic version of the developmental disorder.
Missing or duplicated stretches of DNA, known as copy number variations, have been linked to some cases of autism. The new study shows that some people with autism may be missing all or parts of one or several genes involved in the development and function of the brain.
The current study overrides previous thought that autistic individuals have more copy number variants than the general population. The current study indicates that autistic and non-autistic have similar numbers of copy number variants but that the autistic group tend to have deletions that remove parts or all of genes while the non-autistic group have deletions on stretches of DNA that don't contain genes.
Each copy number variant was rare on its own, with overlap found in less than 1% of the study group. People with autism inherit the rare variant from their parents; but, approximately 6% of the study group had new deletions not found in parents. This is posited to account for sporadic cases of autism.
One gene strongly linked to autism is identified as DDX53-PTCHD1. It is located on the X chromosome. Women, having two X chromosomes may have a deletion on one gene and have a healthy other gene on that X chromosome, possibly averting autism. This fact may help explain the disproportionate number of males with autism. Males, having a single X chromosome, have no counterbalancing gene on the Y chromosome to avert autism.
These studies hope to better define the developmental disorder autism, to offer testing, and the possibility of drug treatments.
This article was gleaned from Science News, 7/3/10. |
Assistive Technology Purchased and Unused in NYC Classrooms |
Augumentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is defined by Wikipedia as "communication for those with impairments or restrictions on the production or comprehension of spoken or written language" and, in this instance, involves sophisticated high-tech equipment that cost $8,000 per unit.
These units are supposed to be distributed and used by autistic children being serviced in public schools, but obtaining such a device for a child is exceedingly difficult. Having one of these AAC devices does not guarantee continual and effective usage.
Usually, it is the speech teacher who is singled out to implement this team-oriented approach with the child, a short-sighted approach when the whole teaching and support team should be involved.
Once distributed to a child, the staff receives superficial and incomplete training from the supplying the AAC. The lack of in-depth training and follow-up by the suppliers frustrate the DOE trainees, who typically put these devices aside, to gather dust.
There is no follow-up as to the distribution and effectiveness of the AAC devices to the children, or the training and effectiveness of staff.
It remains a typical buy-and-discard, silver bullet strategy. (Just rub it on the aching muscle and it will be cured). When will these people realize that all tools, high-tech and low-tech, are just tools. One must properly train the users of the tools and follow-up with more training, critiques, and measurements of success.
|
| Spotlight on High Points | |
Calling Attention to Applied Aspects of Special Education | |
Today we feature a post-secondary school, Thames Academy at Mitchell College in New London, CT.
Thames Academy
Thames Academy is a post-grad or pre-college transitional experience. It is a year of academic preparation that students take between the end of their secondary school/high school education and the start of their college studies. Unlike traditional post-grad programs at independent or prep schools, Thames Academy at Mitchell College provides college level courses for credit.
Located on Mitchell College campus, the Academy provides a highly structured residential program within a collegiate environment and co-curricular interaction with two-year and four-year students. Students who embark upon this distinctive transitional year will have already obtained their high school diploma and are college age.
Mitchell College Mission StatementMitchell College, a private institution of higher education, provides a transforming educational experience. Within a diverse and student-centered community and with an emphasis on holistic student development, Mitchell College supports individual learning differences, nurtures untapped academic potential, and instills professional knowledge and skills necessary for students to contribute to an ever-changing world. |
|
|
|
|
|
NYS Education Department Cannot Ban Specific Class Ratios | |
A recent decision from the US District Court for the Eastern District of NY has ruled that the NYS Ed Department may not wholly prohibit a school from offering a particular student:teacher ratio.
The Court stated that the decision of student:teacher ratio should be determined by the duly-constituted IEP team and should be based on the child's unique needs.
The NYS Ed Department ordered the school to stop placing students in 12:2:2 classes. The Court said this is a violation of FAPE and was sufficient to raise a claim of the IDEA.
The Court said that a complaint must merely allege a plausible set of facts to provide a right to relief. Based on allegations, it might be determined that the Ed Department may violate the procedures of the IDEA by predetermining placement.
The Court likened this to a 6th Circuit case of 2004 where a school district refused to consider ABA for an autistic child.
For more info:
Kalliope R. by Irene D. and George R. v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 110 LRP 32257 (E.D.N.Y. 06/01/10). | |
|
| 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. |
|
Parent Participation in IEP Meeting Underscored by IDEA | |
The IDEA is very specific about parental participation at the IEP meeting (Section 300.322): the CSE must make all reasonable effort to allow the parent to participate, including rescheduling or tele-conferencing, soon maybe SKYPE. There is a section on what and how the CSE may move forward after multiple parent declines to participate.
So, the US District Court in Maryland was faced with the case of a parent who could not participate with repeated appointments. The district went ahead and developed an IEP without the parent's input. The district claimed and documented that invitations to multiple appointments went unattended; AND, the IEP had to be finalized before the start of the new school year.
The Maryland Court ruled that the IDEA is clear about inviting the parent and the parent declining, and there was sufficient documentation that multiple appointments were offered. Further, the Court said that the IEP developed, though claimed deficient by the parent, offered the child an appropriate placement. The parent's claim of insufficiency was not supported by any evidence other than the parent's preference.
Moral of the story: cross your T's, dot your I's, and play fair and open with the IEP team. | |
T.S. v. Weast (D. Md. 06/10/10). |
|
|
|
|
End Notes
It must be a slow news day at the Wall Street Journal. They wouldn't want to report on the BP oil spill, bank reform, or the European markets implosion. So, dust off the standard screed on special education and how much the upstanding and charitable DOE spends and how greedy the greedy rich parents are and, boo-hoo sniff-sniff et voila, instant article with instant outrage.
The recent incarnation of this ageless and oft-repeated article is by Barbara Martinez and states that the DOE spent $116 million on tuitions and legal fees related to special education. That's interesting in several ways.
First, Michael Best, at the time (and maybe now, too) General Counsel to the Chancellor, stated in the NY Times version of this article a year ago that tuition was $85 million (I'm working from memory here ... maybe off by a percent or so). That means that $31 million was spent on legal fees. Question: legal fees to whom -- to the DOE for their attorneys or to the prevailing attorneys of parents? Our experiences at SLA are that the DOE will defend itself by going to Impartial Hearing even when they offered no placement to the special education child; or a patently inappropriate program (a fifth grader being offered a program that only runs to the fourth grade)! The DOE is also notorious for having non-attorneys represent them. These non-attorneys are told to "fight the bad parents" and do so by extending the expected two-day hearing to eight or ten days.
The second point is that this $116 million amount, a personal fortune to be sure, is 0.6% of the DOE budget. The DOE spends more money on public relations tracking and reporting its successes ($175 million per year) and on a study of what makes a good teacher ($200 million -- though paid by the Gates Foundation)
Thirdly, and most importantly, IF the DOE had appropriate programs, truly appropriate for all the 100,000 special education children in New York City, it would bust the budget of a small nation, not just an agency of the city. The DOE utilizes this de facto outsourcing of special education, and leaves the poorest and neediest to drown, and the middle class flounder about.
Sincerely,
Susan Luger Associates, Inc.
Update to End Notes: Susan had a telephone interview with WSJ reporter Barbara Martinez (leave it to the Barracuda) and explained our side of the story. We are hoping for a follow-up article that is better researched and corroborated, and is more realistic. |
|
|
