Autism Society records most keynote and concurrent sessions at their annual conferences. You can see and hear those recordings by purchasing full online access, or individual recordings.
Our presenters are all Rhode Island residents and present day crusaders, who have fought substantial legal and/or institutional battles to champion the rights of disabled children on the Autism Spectrum. The panelists consist of three attorneys, one a local school committee member, and a school administrator and social worker, the latter two who were instrumental in creating an inclusive but specialized public school program for children on the Autism Spectrum. The presenters offer their experiences and knowledge, and will highlight some successes and failures within the legal and institutional settings for teaching a child on the Autism Spectrum. Their discussion will include advocacy for successful programs, and against programs which have been historical failures.
While, for the last 30 years since Congress enacted laws to prevent discrimination against disabled children, the courts, in accordance with Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), have held that school districts do not have to provide the best education for disabled students but merely must provide services so the child receives some educational benefit. Courts have used analogies in their decisions acknowledging that school districts need only offer disabled students a "serviceable Chevrolet" as opposed to a Cadillac. Whatever analogy used, parents and school districts have always had much difficulty in arriving at a consensus regarding the method of teaching, especially when there is ample evidence that the teachers are untrained and the children have not benefitted. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the court decisions in many due process hearing disputes resolved in favor of school districts, courts defer to the school district for its expertise in determining what is an appropriate methodology and plan. Indeed, in a recent significant IDEA case, Lt. T.B. v. Warwick School Committee, argued by one of the presenters on behalf of parents, the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the administrative findings in favor of the parents because the school district's program was appropriately presented as one of "reasonable choices" among "appropriate instructional methods."
Prior to the recent spate of autism cases, the courts have been either unwilling and/or unable to impose standards by which to assess the appropriateness of an educational methodology. While research about what may be an appropriate methodology and plan is now plentiful, and parents are becoming much more educated about the types of successful instruction, schools have not kept up with the research, nor adequately trained their staff, and/or have stopped funding intensive one-on-one programs. This problem has been exacerbated by the acute incidence of Autism, the substantial increase in cost of services to educate children on the Autism Spectrum, and the lack of funding for special education programs.
With the passage of the Reauthorized IDEA 2004, new standards have been created, or borrowed from the No Child Left Behind Act. School districts must now ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high quality education and proficiency. School districts must clos[e] the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children and ensur[e] access of children to effective, scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content.
IDEA 2004 counters low expectations of School Personnel for a disabled children, who may be two, three, or more academic years behind their nondisabled peers, by requiring more than one year of academic progress in one year. School personnel who work with children with disabilities must receive high quality, intensive professional development and training to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities, including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent possible. Disabled students must now be given the opportunity to improve academic achievement and functional performance . . . to the maximum extent possible.
As a result of these new legal standards, a small minority of schools have responded by creating new classroom based programs that incorporate generally endorsed research methods. These new standards will be explored from a legal and an educational perspective. The presenters will examine how some school districts have responded, how they should respond, and what parents should learn about these new standards to ensure that their children on the Autism Spectrum are provided with a real prospect of educational benefit.
Content Area: Family and Sibling Support
Glenn R. Friedemann, J.D.
Esq.
Tillinghast Licht LLP
Mark W. Dana, J.D.
Esq.
Law Office of Mark Dana, P.C.
Gail K. Weisberger, M.S.W.
Social Worker
Providence School Department, Special Education Department, Autism Team
Merrill J. Friedemann, J.D.
Esq.
Friedemann & Associates
Karen D. Vessella, M.S.
Director, Student Services
Providence School Department, Special Education Department, Autism Team