Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 11 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
School division loses autistic child’s case
Published Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Suffolk Public School System cannot force the parents of a 6-year-old autistic child to put their son in a special program for autistic students, a hearing officer ruled this week.
The officer’s ruling came a week after the conclusion of due process proceedings brought by the school system against Vincent and Kimberly Rodgers when the Rodgers’ refused to agree to their son’s placement in the autistic children’s curriculum of the Southeastern Cooperative Education Program.
The parents wanted their son, who is not being named because he is a minor, to be placed at a transitional kindergarten program at Elephant’s Fork Elementary School.
After a series of meetings and a mediation that failed to produce an agreement, the school division filed the due process proceedings, meaning it had to prove the SECEP program was the least restrictive environment where the child could receive a free and appropriate public education.
The system failed to do so, according to the decision issued Monday by the hearing officer.
The issue at stake was whether the SECEP program was a proper placement – in other words, a placement where the student could continue to improve his academic, social and communication skills – and if it was the least restrictive environment where he could improve.
The hearing officer, Sarah Smith Freeman, ruled that the student’s current placement, at Northern Shores Elementary School, is the most appropriate placement at this time.
“There is no showing that all of the above cannot be achieved in Student’s current educational placement,” the decision states. “Further, there is little evidence that Student presents ‘a disruptive force’ in class.”
About two dozen people testified during the five-day hearing, including the student’s parents, other relatives, classroom teachers, music teacher, occupational therapist, T-ball coach, expert witnesses, SPS special education personnel, and Superintendent Milton Liverman.
Witnesses for the parents testified that they do not believe the child needs a more restrictive environment. However, witnesses for the school division said they believe the SECEP program would be best.
“The (school division) has not proven that the child may not be educated in the current setting with supplementary aids and related services. The (school division) has not proven that the child’s disability is so severe that he cannot be educated in his current placement with appropriate supplementary aids and related services,” says the decision. “The (school division) does not prevail on this issue. Segregated placement in a regional day school is not the most appropriate placement for Student at this time. The least restrictive environment in which Student will receive a (free and appropriate public education) is the current self-contained center based placement, with supplementary aids and related services, at Northern Shores Elementary School.”
Cheryl Poe, a special education advocate who represented the Rodgers family in the case, said she was pleased at the ruling, but still has concerns.
“For me, testimony after testimony after testimony clearly showed that Suffolk Public Schools did not make an honest attempt to provide him with appropriate supports and services to be successful,” Poe said. “They set him up to fail, then said, ‘He can’t do this, let’s kick him out.’”
However, Poe still is concerned about what will happen now, because the hearing officer did not order a placement, only identified Northern Shores Elementary School as the least restrictive environment.
“We have requested an IEP (individual education plan) meeting,” Poe said.
The student’s mother, Kimberly Rodgers, said the hearing was frustrating, but she is somewhat pleased at the outcome.
“All we ever wanted from this was to have our son have the same opportunity to be educated with his peers in the least restrictive environment,” Rodgers said. “I really felt like it was a power struggle and didn’t have anything to do with my son and his capabilities.”
The school division has the option to appeal the case to the state circuit court or a federal district court, meaning the case may not be over yet.
Comments
Posted by specialjkh (anonymous) on November 13, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really I'm glad to see someone stand up to Suffolk Public Schools and the Special Education department. This department tends to look for an out instead of fixing the problem with out making the child and family suffer.
Posted by grimes6va (anonymous) on November 16, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the previous comments in regards to the Special Education department of Suffolk Public Schools. I really felt it was unnecessary to put the Rodgers child and family through this hearing when they were clearing within their rights to have their child in a mainstream classroom. When the protocol for said child was followed their were not any incidents and I was disappointed in Suffolk Public Schools leadership to suggest otherwise. Bravo for proactive parenting.
Posted by childrenarethefuture (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great victory Rodgers family! It is a shame that the Suffolk school district put you threw such an ordeal. Your son is lucky to have parents that will fight for him. Hopefully, Suffolk will look at this as a learning tool and start working with parents not against them. It sounds like the school has much to learn and where better to start then with the child's PARENTS who KNOW WHAT IS BEST!
Posted by Advocate (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello,
Please keep in mind the parents did not file for a due process, Suffolk School Board filed against them.
Mr. and Mrs. Rodgers were forced by the district to participate in a long, expensive, and emotionally traumatic hearing, because the Dr. Witcher decided not to work in a cooperative or collaborative manner to resolve the issue. Instead, Dr. Witcher participated in aggressive, unprofessional, and bulling, mannerism as documented by Mrs. Rodgers, during the mediation process. When Mrs. Rodgers attempted to seek support to resolve the issue by sending a letter to Dr. Liverman, his response was to file a due process against this parent.
Yes, I am happy that school district did not prevail in this case, however, I am disappointed that the leadership within the district decided to use taxpayer’s money for a due process hearing, instead of working with the family in a respectfully and productive manner to resolve the issue.
Let’s hope that in the future, the Suffolk School district will make a good faith effort to honor their mandates under the law instead of wasting tax payer money.
Cheryl A Poe
Special Education Advocate
Advocating 4 Kids
www.advocate4kids.org
Posted by advocate60915 (anonymous) on November 18, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As an educational advocate and author of Disability Deception; Lies Disability Educators Tell and How Parents Can Beat Them at Their Own Game, I have seen this poor treatment of parents for many years! The Hearing Officers decision was wonderful and brings up an excellent point that I see daily. If special education personnel give children the services and supplementary aids and supports they need, most will be successful. The problem is that many special education personnel do not want to provide educational services to children with disabilities. In this case it appeared that the school district wanted to put the child in a more restrictive placement, rather than provide the services that the child needs. Good for advocates like Cheryl Poe who stand up for children, who often are not able to stand up for themselves! It is unfortunate that parents must put up with awful treatment if they are to help their children with disabilities succeed in their education! But if we do not stand up for the children noone will!
Posted by autisticmom (anonymous) on November 19, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a child with autism and I am in that school often. My autistic child doesn't go there, my older child does. What saddens me is people don't know the whole story. This child is in a preschool with very young children, I think most of them are 3, while is he is 6. Secondly, every time I see his teachers working with him, they are so kind and patient and it is obvious he likes them very much. This Cheryl Poe woman would like you to believe his teachers don't care about him. She obviously has never personally witnessed him at school to see how much love and care he receives. I feel sorry for the child and his teachers who are trying so hard to help him, while people come on here and say the meanest things. People need to hear both sides of a story before assuming everything they read is true. Ironically I am looking into the SECEP program for my child because of so many success stories, the same reason I bet that his teachers wanted him there.
Posted by Advocate (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To poster autisticmom obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. The parent did not want the child to stay in his current preschool setting. The only reason he is there in preschool is because THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TOOK HER TO DUE PROCESS. When this happens, the law requires that the student stay in his current placement until the hearing officer makes a ruling. In fact the parent asked the hearing officer to order the school to put the child in an age appropriate placement during the due process but her requested was refused. You are right, I have never witnessed the teacher work with the student, but I did hear her testify under oath that she never requested a parent teacher conference to address his behaviors. I did hear her testify under oath that she never called an IEP meeting to revise his goals and objectives. And I did hear her testify under oath that she was instructed by Mrs. Bennet to instead just document his behaviors. And of course this “documented” information was used against the parent in the due process. Maybe in “Suffolk Public School World” caring for children means allowing them to suffer and fail while the district builds a case against the parents.
However in my world of "Advocating 4 kids," caring about children means providing the child with tools to be successful.
Cheryl A Poe
Posted by Advocate (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Joanne I too think this case is a perfect example of how special education director’s and school personnel find ways to get rid of special education students rather then honoring their mandates under the law to include special education students in the public educational setting. From testimony provided by school personnel it is also clear that Suffolk Public School leadership thought that using a strong arm tactic against the parents was more appropriate then working with the parent to come up with idea’s resources, services, and “free” outside supports to ensure this child could be successful. I to want thank you Joanne for the resources and supports you provide to me to get ready for this case. You are a wealth of knowledge and information.
CPoe
Posted by kpgray02 (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Having teachers that are "kind and patient" is very nice, but that does not take the place of appropriate accommodations and should not be confused with that.
All children have the right to the "least restrictive environment" (LRE). Putting a six-year-old in a three-year-old room, especially without first trying to successfully implement appropriate accommodations in an age-appropriate setting, is NOT kind or patient and does not provide this child with LRE.
IDEA sets forth that the parents are an integral part of the decision-making process. They knew their child was not in the correct placement. I applaud them for standing up to the school system when an inappropriate setting was recommended.
The school system has the resources and time to fight, and so often use that tactic to "bully" the parents into backing down and relenting to the school's will. It took guts for these parents to stand up to the school -- and a lot of time, money, and heartache -- but they did what they thought was best for their child. And in the end, the hearing officer agreed with them. In due process, schools usually prevail because they have the resources to make a solid case. If the parents prevailed in this case, that says to me that they probably were spot on!!
Is there any hope that the school district will have to reimbursement their costs?
The school district failed this child. While I think the classroom teachers may have made the best of a bad situation, it was still a bad situation.
Autisticmom -- if you truly feel that SECEP is the right placement for your child and that is the LRE, then I support you. If however SECEP is your ONLY choice because there are no recommendations by his/her IEP team to support his/her participation in a lesser restrictive environment, then I hope you hold your team accountable and make them give you some options.
Schools tend to "load" services into one classroom and then call that the "best environment" for a range of children. This is a "cookie cutter" approach and while it may be efficient for the school district, it is not within the spirit of IDEA.
Autism is a spectrum disorder -- there is no "right" environment for every kid on the spectrum, and some environments are downright wrong.
As a parent of a child with autism, I advocate for my child and I support the right of other parents to advocate for their children.
Posted by Formychild (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A victory has been won when a parent receives FAPE for their child. I too am a parent who did not agree with the terms of my child placement in SECEP and I also sought the services of Cheryl Poe. To be forced into improper placement because your child has ASD does not mean that SECEP is the best placement for the child. Parents are often told that SECEP is the only placement for their autistic child and this is 'simply' not TRUE! Many parents, including myself were told that we could place our child into SECEP and remove them when we wanted to, because SECEP is a program that parents give permission for their child to attend. Autism is a Psychological diagnosis of a neurological disorder which may have some medical issues, not a educational placement based on the medical condition! PARENTS! Wake up and know your rights for your child who can not speak for themselves.
To Ms. Poe and Mr. & Mrs. Rogers, I say WELL DONE!
Posted by schoolcrazy (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently, I made someone angry enough by my post to have it removed. If only life was so simple. Someone says something you do not like and flick a button and have that stricken from the record. I would like the paper to re-instate my statement regarding my feelings about schools in Virginia. My hat goes off to the parent and advocate for defending that Childs rights to have a proper education. If only more parents would have the $%^ to do the same. Maybe, just maybe the schools would think twice before they made decisions regarding the future of your children.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)