[Grovenet] Forest Grove School District before the Supremes . . .

Wed Apr 29 18:01:20 PDT 2009

Having raised a son who grew up with some pretty severe ADHD issues, I can sympathize with the parents to a certain degree. My son was identified as both Talented and Gifted and as having ADHD at a very young age. If you imagine that that was a situation where neither of his wide-ranging educational needs were met on either end by his school district, you're absolutely right. He not only wasn't challenged enough intellectually, his learning difficulties made it impossible for him to fit within the round holes that kids are forced into in our public school system. I can remember all those meetings with school counsellors and administrators where they tried to convince us about all the wonderful accommodations they were making for him. Meanwhile, his grades weren't at par with his intellect, he hated school, kids were mean to him, he couldn't keep up with his homework, and he struggled every day. It was impossible for him to complete the amount of homework
 he was given -- particularly the tedious amounts of busywork he was far too frequently given. And when he got to community college level, it was worse. We were told that, by law, the community college had to give him "tutors". Well, those "tutors" were volunteer students and he always got the luck of the draw whenever he signed up for one, and usually his luck was very bad. He'd go in for help with his Calculus, and the tutor would say things like, "I don't remember how to do that." I wondered where all the money allocated for special ed in community college was going. I can't tell you the hundreds of hours that his dad and I spent trying to help him keep afloat in school. After a while, I felt like I was an unfit mother because I felt like I was always on his case to get his homework done. What's more, I think, to a large extent, he didn't have a very good childhood because he was forever trying to get his homework done (and procrastinate at not
 getting his homework done) and couldn't do fun things. So many times he had to be excluded from doing things he wanted to do because he hadn't finished his homework. It was a constant battle. Teachers would either say we were helping him too much (like, THAT was the the reason for his problems) or they would say we weren't doing enough. Go figure.

I can see that those who don't have a child with learning disabilities might find it extravagant to pay for educational accommodations for such students. But, my son, even on ADHD medications that I hated giving him, struggled so much yet is a very brilliant young man who could contribute to society in a big way if he had had the privilege of more one-on-one education. I learned once from a special education teacher that districts often spend tens of thousands of dollars on retarded students who will never contribute to society in a very productive way. She told me that with my son's intellect, I should never feel guilty for the amount of money my district was paying to accommodate him because he had the aptitude to someday pay society back for what he was given. Even so, I can't see that his school district did all that much for him.

I think, to a large degree, our educational system hasn't evolved a whole lot from the days when I was in school, and it was certainly bad then. One thing has evolved in a big way though:  pre-school education in the form of Sesame Street. The producers of Sesame Street have found ways to get and keep kids' attention and teach them a huge amount at a very young age. Why can't our educational system evolve in similar ways for students as they grow beyond their pre-school years? Why can't our educational system evolve better, more effective ways to grab and keep students' attention?

Why can't our educational system be more EXPERIENTIAL so that school will be more relevant for kids--particularly kids with ADHD? Why are we still giving kids busywork, making them take tests, and having them memorize so much? Why are they forced to sit still for such long periods of time? 

As a person in the workforce, how many TESTS have you been asked to study for and take while working? How relevant is test taking in the grand scheme of things? Do we make kids take tests simply because it's an easy way for educators to judge kids' knowledge and progress? Is it more for the kids or for the teachers?

In a way, I'm more than a little glad to see this ruling today. Sure, it has huge tax implications. But, maybe it'll do some good toward shaking up our educational system so that it might someday better address the evolving needs of our kids.

Holly

________________________________
From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:45:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Forest Grove School District before the Supremes . . .

Sure am glad I'm not a judge . . . 

I can understand the plight of the parents.  After all, we do indeed want a good education for our children from our public school system.  But with T.A.'s situation, the private boarding school was the only option?  I'm guessing this extra info. can't be brought up in court but I'm wondering if the family or at least one parent also moved to the Prineville area to be close to the son during his time at the boarding school.  Or did they have frequent visits w/their son?

I agree our school system needs to provide a good/excellent education.  I just can't agree with T.A.'s parents enrolling T.A. in a private boarding school first then followed by the parents hiring a lawyer in order to get reimbursed for their decision.

Again, sure am glad I'm not a judge . . . 

Allen Warren

________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:06:46 AM
Subject: [Grovenet] Forest Grove School District before the Supremes . . .

Here's one of the first takes on the School District and special ed before the US Supreme Court - 

________________________________

High Court Justices Weigh Funding for Special Education
Tony Mauro
04-29-2009

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday waded into the contentious debate that takes place in public schools every day between parents seeking special education services for their children and school administrators who are trying to contain costs. 
As is often the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key vote in deciding Forest Grove School District v. T.A., No. 08-305, and his comments at the argument were difficult to interpret as favoring one side or the other.
At issue is whether parents must first try out the special ed program offered by the public school before they can move their child to a private school program and seek reimbursement for the tuition.
Justices seemed at turns sympathetic with parents who "can't wait years" to find the best program for their children, as Justice David H. Souter put it, and with school systems that merely require that a public school be given a chance to devise a program for the child before having to make costly reimbursements for private programs. "All they're saying is, 'give it a try,' " said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at one point.
In the case before the Court today, a student identified only as T.A., now 23, was a public school student in Oregon. In spite of difficulties in school, he never used special education services. School officials evaluated him and suspected he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, but concluded he was not eligible for special ed.
After he experienced more serious problems and began using marijuana in 2003, T.A.'s parents took him out of the public high school and enrolled him in a residential private school where tuition was $5,200 a month. His family sought reimbursement from the school district.
At the district court level, a judge ruled that because T.A. had not used special ed services at the public school first, the statute did not allow reimbursement for the private school tuition.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that T.A. was eligible for reimbursement, in part because the public school did not offer a special ed program to him in the first place. In that circumstance, the appeals panel said "principles of equity" require that the private school tuition be paid by the public school district.
Gary Feinerman, a partner in Sidley Austin's Chicago office who argued for the Forest Grove school district in Oregon, said the language of the statute was clear that the public school program must be tried first.
But several justices suggested that rule did not seem fair if the school system, as it did with T.A., does not find the student eligible for a special ed program.
Feinerman said that under appeals processes that are in place, students in that circumstance would be offered a program on a "very tight turnaround." In fact when an administrative hearing officer in T.A.'s case found that he was entitled to special ed services at the public school, a plan was quickly devised.
David Salmons, a partner in Bingham McCutchen's Washington office who argued on behalf of the student, said students should not be penalized by a school's "wrong eligibility determinations" denying special ed services and forced to pay tuition reimbursements.
But Roberts seemed sympathetic to the schools when he said, "It's a big expense you are asking the school district to incur. ... All they are saying is 'give it a try for 10 days.' "
Assistant to the Solicitor General Eric Miller, arguing on the side of the student, said that if schools are able to deny private school reimbursement by refusing special ed services in the first place, it would "effectively be an incentive for districts to stonewall."
Tuesday's case represents the third time school districts have sought relief from the high court for what schools fear would be a sharp increase in costs for special education services. The National School Boards Association in a brief to the court said those costs "vastly exceed" the federal funding they receive under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
In 2007, Board of Education of City School Dist. of City of New York v. Tom F., 128 S. Ct. 1, raising the same issue as the case Tuesday, was docketed, briefed and argued. But shortly before the arguments, Kennedy announced without explanation that he was recusing himself from the case. A week after the case was argued, the Court affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of the student by a 4-4 vote, making it clear that Kennedy's absence from the case was key to the outcome.
Later that term, Kennedy recused in Board of Educ. of Hyde Park v. Frank G., 128 S. Ct. 436, which also raised the same issue, and the Court denied review before the case was fully briefed or argued.
Both cases were from the New York City area, where some of Kennedy's children and grandchildren live, leading to unconfirmed speculation that Kennedy recused because of some family connection to special education services.
 Copyright 2009. Incisive Media US Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet