Hello, I am new to the board. My son is 5 years old and is in an early intervention pre school right now. We are begining to plan for Kindergarten in the fall. We live in a very rural part of PA and there is only one option for him at a life skills classroom in this county. I personally observed this "life skill" class and was very discouraged. It was very unstructured and not an appropriate learning environment for my son. This is the only option for him in our county and I am sooo scared.
We live 20 minutes from the NY border, and there are so much more options in NY state. I observed a class in Binghamton that would be perfect for him. I really want him to attend the school in NY. (kinda hard to pick up and leave our home immediately, but may have to)
I was hoping there was someone out there who has had a similar expirience. Or any advice would be helpful. I may have a fight but the school in NY says they have children go there from our school district in Pa. How can I properly fight this for my son? I feel so frustrated. Thank
Welcome to the boards!
Tzoya is a fabulous resource here...Her advice is sound.
Please keep us updated on your situation!
All the best!
(a) The functioning levels of students with autism, based upon the criteria set forth in section 200.6 (g)(2) of this Part, shall govern their individual or small group instruction.
(1) The continuum of special education programs and services as described in section 200.6 of this Part shall be available to students with autism as needed.
(2) The chronological age range of instructional groups serving students with autism shall not exceed 36 months for students under age 16 and shall not be limited for students 16 years of age or older.
(3) The class size for such students shall be determined in accordance with section 200.6 (f) and (g) of this Part, provided that the class size of special classrooms composed entirely of students with autism shall be in accordance with section 200.6 (g)(4)(ii)(a) of this Part.
(4) Instructional services shall be provided to meet the individual language needs of a student with autism for a minimum of 30 minutes daily in groups not to exceed two, or 60 minutes daily in groups not to exceed six.
(5) To the maximum extent appropriate, instructional provisions shall be instituted for eventual inclusion of students with autism into resource room programs for students with combined disabilities or placement in a regular classroom.
(6) In those instances where a student has been placed in programs containing students with other disabilities, or in a regular class placement, a special education teacher with a background in teaching students with autism shall provide transitional support services in order to assure that the student's special education needs are being met.
(b) The length of the school day for students with autism shall be that set forth in section 175.5 of this Chapter.
(c) All school districts are required to furnish appropriate educational programs for students with autism from the date they become eligible for a free appropriate public education until they obtain a high school diploma, or until the end of the school year in which they attain their 21st birthday, whichever occurs first.
(d) Provision shall be made for parent counseling and training as defined in section 200.1 (kk) of this Part for the purpose of enabling parents to perform appropriate follow-up intervention activities at home.
(e) Upon application and justification to the commissioner, approval may be granted for variance from special class sizes and the chronological age ranges specified in subdivision (a) of this section.
| ANDREW CUDDY (Attorney) |
| P.O. BOX 636 |
| AUBURN, NY 13021 |
| Phone: 7168689103 |
| Email: akcuddy132@aol.com |
Brett,
I am sort of near you in Susquehanna county. Very rural and there is NOT much here that is offered to my children. I am terrified of the future. Ny state is so close and MILES ahead of us in special education. I can't get PT for my son b/c he can walk. So, I take him outpatient and theres a lack of pt in this area. The outpatient office isn't designed for children. I have been waiting for ABA and a communication device for months! Also, I tried to get him into a human service agency that provides more services and it has been 6 months and still not in. It almost feels like discrimination because we live here. It's sooooo frustrating. I am not happy with PA's system. Kelly
Kalebton,
On May 11, 2007 the due process hearing of Jeffrey and Sandee
Winkelman, on behalf of their son with autism, ended the evidentiary
phase. This hearing addressed the special education issues of their son
Jacob for the 2006-2007 school year. The Winkelmans have been in
litigation with the Parma City School District for a number of years
regarding the free, appropriate public education which the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act requires their son to receive. The
Winkelmans are involved in a lengthy court battle with the PCSD over
whether a parent has a right to proceed pro se (for themselves without
an attorney) in matters of the IDEA (the law addressing special
education). The decision in that matter should be rendered within the
next month by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the current due process
hearing, the Winkelmans are represented by attorney Andrew Cuddy, of
Auburn, New York. Cuddy was admitted pro hac vice (for this particular
matter) under the sponsorship of Michael J. Goldberg, a Cleveland
Criminal Defense attorney, who represented the Winkelmans for the
2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. Michael welcomed the help from Cuddy
and sponsored him so that he could practice law in Ohio on behalf of
the Winkelman family. Cuddy is an experienced special education
attorney that has recently published The Special Education Battlefield:
A Guide to the Due Process Hearings and Other Tools of Effective
Advocacy (available at www.andrewcuddybooks.com).
The current due process hearing is addressing the Winkelman’s claim for
reimbursement for a private school placement of their son at the
Monarch School, a state approved school designed to meet the
educational needs of students with autism. PCSD claims that the school
is not appropriate, and that the parents are not entitled to
reimbursement. PCSD further maintains that its in-district program is
appropriate to meet Jacob’s needs, despite the Districts failing
special education programs according to Ohio Department of Education
records.
The hearing lasted eleven days. During the hearing the Winkelmans
presented testimony of three individuals that were qualified as experts
by the hearing officer who testified that the PCSD program would cause
irreparable harm and injury to the student. The District only presented
the testimony of their staff to support the District position that the
PCSD program would “allow for educational benefit.” “I believe the
District staff was pressured to misrepresent information to the hearing
officer, and am investigating this matter further so that it can be
brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities if warranted,”
said Cuddy.
Cuddy stated, “The position of the District is outrageous. Experts and
the child’s physicians are telling the District that their program will
cause irreparable harm to the student. For the District to insist the
student attend this program is evidence of their complete disregard for
the student’s well-being.” Cuddy has launched an investigation into the
budgetary issues of the District, as he suspects that IDEA money that
is designated for special education programming is being funneled to
the School District’s attorneys. “There is no other explanation I can
imagine for a District spending ,000,000 dollars defending a program
that all the experts involved in the case conclude will injure the
child. If we follow the money, I believe we will find the individual
for this decision-making,” Cuddy said.
When asked of his opinion regarding the case, Cuddy expressed
confidence. “The burden of proof in these due process hearings is upon
the parents. We presented multiple experts with advanced degrees
supporting the parents’ position. Every service provider familiar with
the child supported the parents’ position with their reports and
testimony. The District’s defense in this matter was based on the
opinions of their own staff, which certainly appeared ‘coached’ as each
witness testified about hours of preparation spent with multiple school
district attorneys.” Cuddy further stated, “The only way that I can
imagine the hearing officer ruling against the parents is if the
corruption in the District goes beyond the District and to the level of
the hearing officers and the Ohio Department of Education.”
As an attorney from New York, Cuddy expressed surprise about the
programs that were described by the PCSD staff. The classrooms, which
were continually referred to as “units” by the PCSD staff, offered
little educational instruction to the students. In the morning hours,
the special education teacher only spent 15 minutes of time with each
student. The remainder of the morning the student only received the
attention of a classroom aide, a person unqualified to provide
instruction. A similar routine was established in the afternoon,
allowing for minimal time with a certified teacher. “Districts are not
allowed to ‘warehouse’ special education in this manner. These children
are entitled to teaching services equivalent to a regular education
student. That is not happening in Parma. I am surprised that other
parents are not up in arms. There was also evidence in the hearing that
the Parma staff is using mechanical restraints in the classroom to
control behavior of students with autism. This rises to the level of
criminal conduct, in my mind, as the state’s own regulations prohibit
mechanical restraints for this purpose,” Cuddy said.
The hearing also focused on the School Report Card of the Ohio
Department of Education. “Parma did not pass. The District’s action
plan to address their failures in special education, and complained of
inadequate funds to properly train staff. It was clear during this
hearing that the staff members are not properly trained, and that there
are funding issues.” The two classrooms addressed in the hearing both
exceeded the state limit of eight students. Cuddy is continuing to
investigate the funding issues. “It seems very clear from the
District’s records that money intended to pay for special education
programming is being used to pay attorneys to fight providing
appropriate special education programming. This is contrary to what the
law allows, as it is a violation of law to use special education money
to pay attorneys. This practice negatively impacts of the provision of
special education services to all the students in the District.”
A decision from the impartial hearing officer, Harry Taich, Esq., is due on June 28, 2007.
If you have questions regarding this press release, please contact Andrew K. Cuddy, Esq.
(716) 868-9103
Andrew@cuddylawoffice.com