Submitted by Amy, Jul 24, 2007 08:14

The Supreme Court established the standard for educating students with disabilities years ago in its decision in Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v Rowley. In that case, the Court found that students with disabilities were entitled to a public education that imparts "meaningful" benefit on students with disabilities and does not impose on states "any greater substantive educational standard." While a student may make greater progress with 1:1 ABA therapy, or with increased sessions of speech or occupational therapy, that is simply not the standard. The threshold question is whether the public school program was reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit for the child. The public schools must provide education for ALL students, including those with severe disabilities, those who don't speak English, students who come from severely abusive homes, students born with drug addictions, students who live well below the poverty line, and many other students with all kinds of problems and issues to deal with. Excellence and equality are difficult to achieve at the same time, especially when there is no even playing field. When people think of special education, they tend to see the child with obvious disabilities, such as Down't Syndrome or Physical Impairments, what they don't see are the "invisible disabilities" such as behavior disturbances or learning disabilities and the number of dollars that go into budgets for educating all students. What about the child with autism, who is getting A's and B's, ran for student council president and had friends, but whose parent thought she needed more and so she used the due process procedures to challenge the district, costing the district $80,000 in legal fees? Or the child whose mother was a drug addict with problems of her own, but used the due process procedures to fight the district's suggested placement at a facility for students with severe emotional problems, after the student repeatedly attacked students and staff by hitting, kicking, punching, throwing scissors, throwing chairs and being both physically and verbally agressive, and after the district had spent over $20,000 to bring in special consultants, send the child to camp and to private tutoring? Is it right that the district then had to spend another $50,000 in legal fees to defend its decision to provide a more appropriate program? To suggest that all school districts deny appropriate programs for students, leading parents to conclude that they must fight to get their child enrolled in private school is ludicrous. 1:1 instruction at a cost of more than $40,000 per year so the child can make progress, or 5:1 at a significantly lower cost, so the child can make progress? Which is the sensible answer? The public schools should not be required to fund a "Cadillac program, when a Chevy will do."

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.