Skip to comments.Court Rules Against Special Ed. Parents
Posted on 11/14/2005 10:10:08 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents who demand better special education programs for their children have the burden of proof in the challenges.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the 6-2 court, said that when parents challenge a program they have the burden in an administrative hearing of showing that the program is insufficient. If schools bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor wrote.
The ruling is a loss for a Maryland family that contested the special education program designed for their son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The case required the court to interpret the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which does not specifically say whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in disputes. The law covers more than 6 million students.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
ADHD is a disability now?
They needed the Supreme Court to settle that obvious point?
I tend to agree as public school education should not always be life skills education as is what normally is the case with parents of severely disabled children. Parents are responsible for life skills and how being taught to eat sleep etc. falls in the public school education domain is beyond me.
So basically should public education include life skills? And if not, should public school funds support say 100 K a year education for parents to send their disabled child away?
Its a fine line I am sure.
As the parent of a *clinically diagnosed* AD/HD child (two, actually), I agree wholeheartedly that at least 50% of all *behaviorally diagnosed* cases of AD/HD (those promulgated by teachers, etc.) are wrong.
Oh - and the correct therapy (read: learning how to apply one's own ability to filter out distraction) has eliminated the need for even minimal pharmaceutical intervention at all in my kids.
But,but,but.. This was the 'hyperactivity' version!!!!!
Yeah, who were the dissenters?
DING! We have a winner
Justices Ruth Vader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wrote separate dissents.
It always was a fake disease.
Male initiative is the Left's biggest target. (Ever see Clockwork Orange?)
Wow! Maybe Justice Roberts is knocking heads with Kennedy and Souter - they voted the right way this time!
It is definitely a victory for common sense! There is an incredible amount of abuse when it comes to classifying students as learning disabled and getting them into special ed programs.
One of my friends teaches public school in a town where this is a real problem. The school has a large population of students who are lower-income blacks and Hispanics. Many of these students struggle in school and are put into remedial/special ed classrooms.
The district also has a good number of wealthy white students who also struggle in school. From her perspective as a teacher, my friend has observed that few of these "disabled" white students have any disability beyond a poor work ethic and being spoiled rotten. But the parents of these students are able to get their children classified as learning disabled. The students then get personal aides and are able to remain in regular and sometimes even honors classrooms!
Although many of these white parents are big time liberals who squawk about how racist Bush is because of the Katrina debacle, they'll do anything they can to keep their own spoiled kids from sitting in a classroom with a bunch of minorities. It is not uncommon for these people to threaten to sue the district if it tries to crack down on their children's poor behavior and performance. The situation is just out of control and hopefully this ruling will give the district a little more ammo in the fight against this nonsense.
Has been for years.
Many many ADHD kids receive SSI benefits of $579.00 per month (you tax dollars) for having ADHD or some other "learning disability."
Every ADD or ADHD diagnosis is more money for the school. So when the school has input, they are motivated to get a positive diagnosis. Now this case sounds like a real behavioral problem, but I think many times it's just a bunch of bunk.
They get social security money? I know a kid with spina bifida who gets the money, but I had no idea an ADHD kid could get it too. Wow!
A lot of it, too.
Based on the above statement, Ginsburg seems to be missing the point of this case. Specifically:
An IEP is written for a student, after an evaluation of that child's needs. The assessment and the IEP are written by the same person and approved by the administration (at least in Contra Costa County, and likely in other districts). The IEP is written by a professionally trained and licensed therapists, the goals and program is designed to attain certain results, based on that child's capabilities.
If the IEP is not adequate, then the results will not be achieved (yes there are many variables at work here). But the people in position to best evaluate the overall results, are the parents. That is what this case seems to be saying.
I think in my friend's case, the school district would prefer there were fewer ADD diagnosis. Allowing these kids all kinds of special privliges causes a lot of harm in the long run. It does no one any favors to put a child who will not behave and will not attempt to do work in a regular or even honors classroom. The worst aspect of it all is the truancy issue. Some of these "disabled" students just can't stay in school the whole day, they must either come in late or leave early - without permission. If the school tires to discipline a student for all these unexcused absences, the parents threaten to sue - after all, the poor child is disabled, so he can't be expected to show up at eight each morning like everyone else. It puts the school in a horrible bind because when a student is truant, the school is still liable for his or her safety. If a student cuts out early and then gets, say, hit by a car, the parents can - and will - sue the school district to kingdom come. So the school is damned if they do and damned if they don't.