Submitted by John P. Miller DPM, May 4, 2008 11:07

I would like to make the additional commentary that I have reviewed the fiscal report cards for my school district, published by NYSED.

For the relevant report cards I could find applicable to the six years my son was seeming intentionally misclassified (so as to avoid mandated services which would accompany autism classification) our school district spent 55 to 57 percent of what similar school districts in NYS spent for per special education pupil instructional expenses. The fiscal report cards also indicated the school district spent between 55 and 57 percent of what all school districts in the state spent for the same.

I have asked for explanation from the BOE as to how such savings were achieved (I am quite sure it was through intentional direct and indirect denial of services.). Indirect denial of services can be achieved through failure to misclassify students appropriately with classification which carries mandated services.

Had my son been provided autism classification mandated services such as transitional autism expert for school staff, parent counseling and education, pragmatic speech services, Functional Behavior Assessment and related positive behavior intervention plan; I am quite sure my son would never have undergone the repeated endangerment and abuse.

I have contacted NYSED, VESID, NYS Board of Regents, NYSED/OSPRA, and NYSED Commissioner Mills. No one holds the school or the individuals responsible for their repeated inappropriate actions which the impartial hearing officer found endangered and psychologically and emotionally injured my son.

When I first became aware of a restraint having been used on my son, in February of 2005, I wrote of my concerns to VESID regional office and central office; In spite of this, the abuse continued. In spite of this, my son remain misclassified. In spite of this the school staff remained uneducated as to my son's disability.

I, again contacted region VESID representative, in October of this school year when the school district superintendent refused to disengage my son from a staff member who had engaged in inappropriate and unauthorized physical intervention with my son. The superintendent refused such disengagement even after my son's treating clinical psychologist went on record and stated he feared my son could soon become a danger to himself or others if not soon disengaged. The response from the regional VESID representative was that she could do nothing and that I should contact the Board of education.

I did contact the BOE president and it took an additional week to effect requested disengagement.

John P. Miller DPM

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