Supreme Court Decision Cheered by Parents of Learning Disabled/Disabled Children: Is the Media Missing the Point?

I have a daughter who attends a private school for learning disabled children in New York City.

So I was really interested when a client of ours, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), called yesterday to tell us about a victory in US Supreme Court for disabled/learning disabled children. NYLPI, by the way, helped the plaintiff's counsel and is a non-profit civil rights law firm that strives for social justice.

The case, which you may have already read about, is called Tom F. v. NYC Department of Education. The plaintiff, Tom F. has a learning disabled child and was offered an "inappropriate" placement in a NYC public school. I know all about this myself - every year the City's Department of Education tells me that it has this great place in a great program for my child, but, knowing her learning disabilities all too well and supported by outside experts and educators, I know that the placements would spell disaster for her.

So, instead of accepting a placement that might actually harm his child, Tom sent his child to a private school for the disabled. He then did what many of us do - he sued the City under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) which mandates that every child must be given an "appropriate" education. The City contended that since his child never attended public school, he wasn't eligible for reimbursement. Tom took his case higher up and the lower courts sided with him. Yesterday, in a split 4-4 decision, the Supreme Court let the lower court's decision stand. Tom has won.

Much of the media has focused on the fact that Tom is rich, a former CEO of Viacom and a founder of MTV. But it's often the wealthy or people of some means who have the ability to bring lawsuits that create better laws and precedents for the rest of us.

This victory is huge and parents of disabled and learning disabled children - and advocacy organizations - are celebrating today.

But some of the media seems to be missing what I consider to be the key issue in all this - but of course, that's not surprising, since setting the story up as a "rich guying playing the system" story looks like it will sell more papers.

Here's the point: my daughter was in public school for almost four years. The teachers and staff of the public school, at that time, simply didn't have the resources to deal with her disability anymore, which was becoming increasingly problematic. It broke my heart to have to take her out of an otherwise excellent school with great and dedicated teachers. It's a public school that I helped establish with lots of other parents here in Brooklyn called the Brooklyn New School.

Why do parents with learning and other disabled children even have to consider sending their children to private school? The answer is actually simple - because our public schools can't handle many of the problems that these children present. And let me add here that it's not about the teachers; as a former NYC public school teacher, I can attest to the fact that there are tons of amazing and dedicated teachers in our public school system.

But the public schools can do it as well! Why are the private schools so much more successful at teaching learning disabled students? They do it right! They spend the necessary money. They have developed the best programs. They give their teachers all the support they need. They supply every resource. Most of the students in private high schools for children with disabilities go on to college.

Why don't our public schools copy the success found in the private schools? Is it the money? What about the money that the City is already throwing away every time it pays for someone else -- a private school operator-- to educate a child appropriately when the City could be doing it too? And the City is throwing away a lot of this money - reportedly $57 million in the last school year alone.

Instead of moaning about people suing the school system, what if the City's Department of Education created a couple of schools for children with disabilities modeled on the private schools' success? This would stop the hemorrhaging of both children and money from the public schools and would make mainstreaming of these children easier, when appropriate. I would love to send my child to such a school and would be more than happy to do so.

This would also level the playing field for children whose parents don't have the money or wherewithal to hire an attorney to sue the City for private school tuition. Many low income parents simply don't have the money to sue, even though, at the end of the litigation, they have a good chance of winning. What happens is that low income children get into classes which may not be helping them at all; they don't have a choice. It's good old fashioned classism that hits people of color disproportionately, and the system that's set up now only perpetuates it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we the "education" country? The "no child left behind" country? Then why are we choosing -- because that's what it is, a choice -- to basically throw up our collective hands and leave the education of our children, children who need it the most, to private operators and then have the nerve to complain about it?

Is it just me?

Comments

[kasa5400]

It may be mandated bt Federal statute that ridiculous sums of money be wasted on 'personalizing' a lesson plan and educational methods for children with things such as autism or mental illness, but is a WASTE.

That autistic child who does not speak, can not participate and has no self-control will never be self-supporting nor employable.

The kid with the IQ equivalent to a box of rocks is not going to be employable - or at least not where he can pay for food, shelter and other necessities.

There is only so much money. When gifted students can not receive the education and attention they need to proceed at the pace of which they are capable, it makes more sense to spend the money on them and not on the rum-dums who will never be economically productive nor self-supporting. Funds for education should be allocated based upon the students' ability to learn and achieve - not based upon some touchy-feely 'oh it makes the defective child feel better to be included and let's mommy and daddy pretend that coloring inside the lines at age 13 is the equivalent of mastering phsyics."

The parents can deluded themselves all they want that their defective child is 'mainstream.' They are not - and with many behavioral and mental disabilities, they never will be. The predominant effect of having them in the classroom is to disrupt the class for the other students and slow their progress.

Spend the money first on the kids who can leatn and achieve.

[Chrisallalone]

Okay, passing for a moment on the point that many of these kids can "leatn" at least as well as many people who can, say, work the internet . . . .

There are glimmers of a point here, but only that. Absolutely, gifted students should be given the opportunities they deserve, and too often they aren't. But as you falsely pit children against each other, you choose language -- "box of rocks," "rum-dums" -- which betrays no interest in the subtleties of actual reality. Like the fact that when people talk about kids being mainstreamed, no one means nonverbal autistic children who can't color within the lines. That there are many degrees to which one can be affected by such a disorder. That many kids who score very low on certain measures of intelligence actually fare quite well on others. That people with learning disabilities are often very intelligent, highly educable achievers. That mental illness, which you cite, occurs across the population at all levels of intelligence, and when treated can be compatible with a productive life.

No, a screed like yours works much better when you can reduce all "defective" children to vegetables whom I assume you would propose sauteing and serving for tea. My disabled daughter is also gifted, though, so you'll have to be careful which parts you're serving up. Could get awfully messy.

[outnow]

I have a son who was diagnosed with behavioral and learning disabilities. I went through all of the IEPs and the special education system in public school.

For some of these children, the option to opt out of the public school system is critical. The reason is that the diagnoses at a young age are usually subjective. Neuropsychological testing must often be performed. Genetic and chromosomal tests may indicate other problems. Even brain imaging and electrophysiological testing may demonstrate other pathology.

The child has a right to be mainstreamed with the other children but the right to be in a specialized private school may be preferable in a given case. It is an "individual" educational program. I applaud the courts for recognizing this fact.

One size does not fit all. Also, other children can be cruel to certain children based on their disabilities. School avoidance is a problem because of bullying for some special education children.

I encourage parents to obtain outside evaluations where appropriate. Bring these written evaluations to the meetings and work with the team. Retain counsel when necessary. Your child will appreciate it.

Your child shouldn't have to fail before he is placed appropriately.

[barry51]

I FOUND THE GREAT, FREE SITE, WWW.THEEASYESSAY.COM THAT is of great help to LD students

[jbgnyc]

I wish Tom F. had taken some of his millions and set up the unique public school he felt best suited his child and others. New York City Charter School provisions allow for this. Time Warner founder Steve Ross's wife has done exactly that, creating a new public charter school based on learning techniques she saw working elsewhere. It opened recently downtown and is fully accredited by the City of New York.

Yes, public schools should be created to serve special needs children. but I fear this "victory" only means money will be taken from some other equally valuable program to fund this.

One additional note: my daughter attended the upper school version of the public school Tom F. chose not to allow his son to attend. We had several severely disabled students (some needing wheelchairs and aides). The school is highly selective and academically demanding. But both the special needs students in my daughter's class got accepted to highly prestigious colleges. Public schools can work! Filing suit so the city must now pay private school tuition just seems counter-productive all around.

[TonyShad]

Like so many other issues, there are many stakeholders here, and some win and some lose.

Learning disabled kids - a win. They get a better shot at education than they would without this decision.

Parents of l.d.k. - a win. Raising a l.d. kid is emotionally and financially draining (and I hear a big "me, too!" from parents whose kids *aren't* l.d.), and they deserve whatever support they can get. [emotionally and financially draining, and hugely rewarding in ways not countable]

Private education - a win. More parents can afford their services, and their services are recognized as better.

Public education - a loss. The decision-makers have chosen not to provide this kind of schooling, and now they'll have to pay market rates for it, out of an already-too-small budget.

Public educators - a loss. Though the city system doesn't provide this kind of schooling, the public impression is created that private education must be inherently better.

The Supreme Court - a loss. The lower court ruling stands because the Supremes couldn't make a decision either way. Wish that had been the 2000 Bush v. Gore outcome!

The press - a win. Most things are, since they get to highlight the info they like (well-off dad gets money out of impoverished public ed), and ignore or hide what they don't like (public ed has to buy at market rates what it chose not to provide).

Though I'm a strong supporter of public education, I have to say this comes out as a win overall. This blog does a very nice job of bringing these points out.

[Migsy]

Well it's about time the country actually has followed through with anything pertaining "the children."

There are some flaws to our industrial era-esque public education system. I remember as a "soon-to-be-entering high schooler," I took an entrance exam for the school and managed to pass with relatively good scores. They were also relatively good guesses. So I spent my four years of high school taking extraneous classes that I failed and continued to fail because I couldn"t catch up. It felt like attending school was equivalent to riding on a conveyor belt of a mass production plant; You"ll get pushed along as long as you meet the minimum requirements for production. And if you didn"t meet that minimum requirement, it was either "fail" or "go one level below" and try to catch up. There was no in-between.

You try catching up in a class of 35 students"half of whom are experiencing the same kind of issue. Oh, did I mention that I don"t have learning disabilities (not that I know of, at least). And I had this much difficulty making it through?

This latest win by NYLPI strikes me as a step forward in the direction that our education system needs to go towards. Kudos to NYLPI and all who continue to work for the betterment of the children and education in general.

[NABNYC]

This was another terrible decision primarily aimed at eliminating the public education system, or starving it of money by funding private (preferably religious) schools instead.

Let me put the question this way: if we have 100 children, and 99 are within a certain functioning level but one is not - autism, or whatever, makes it very difficult for that one child to be in the same classroom.

Do we pay for a very expensive school for that 1? Or do we give the 1 an aide, mainstream them, tell the aide to pull them out if they disrupt the class, and move forward? You can see my preference.

I'm against using taxpayers money for private schools. Period. Under any circumstances. No exceptions.

This decision has given the wealthy of the country grounds to demand that their child, who they and their doctors will tell you is hyperative with attention deficit disorder (isn't everyone), the right to place their children in extremely expensive private schools and take the money out of the public school fund.

We lose. Public education loses. The neocons win because their goal is to de-fund public education and get all the kids into religious schools where they can be properly trained like little neo-nazi robots to love God, respect the President, and join the military.

[Chrisallalone]

NABNYC,
I agree that mainstreaming is a good plan. In fact, that's the path we've taken with our daughter with Asperger's Syndrome, despite some very difficult times. She has lots of issues, but she's very bright, and we think it's best for everyone that she stay in public school with support where she needs it.

But I have a friend whose autistic son, after 3 years in public school with a plan like you describe, simply can't hang on any longer. He was pulled out by the aide so much that he was spending almost all of his time alone in a room doing worksheets, not because he wasn't trying, but because he couldn't tolerate the sensory and social pressures of the classroom.

Public schools can't possibly provide a teacher and a full curriculum for that one kid, so if he stays in public school, he can't really get the appropriate education dictated by the law. If he goes to a private school, there might be eight or ten kids like him, so he's back in a classroom going to school again, with the hope that he can be re-mainstreamed later.

Like you, I'd love to see public schools offer a good education for all kids. In practice, though, unless you provide an alternative for kids who can't cope with that environment, they are inevitably going to be segregated and warehoused. I haven't met a parent yet who was happy about the use of taxpayer money for their child, nor one who was willing to let their kid be written off for the sake of the majority. If you know a way to make it possible for public schools to meet all these individual, specialized needs, then I hope you'll work toward that goal.

[djinn]

I'm the parent of the child who has "autism or whatever." And he is mainstreamed, and he did have an aide for many years who pulled him out when he was disruptive.

The difference between my son and others who have "autism or whatever" is that he was capable to some extent to learn in the mainstream setting. In other words, he was able to obtain a meaningful education there.

The moment that ceases to be true, he will not be there, because, believe it or not, what's important here is that he does learn.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act recognizes his right to an education. You may want to familiarize yourself with that legislation.

[fisharefreinds]

"autism or whatever" do you even know what you are talking about?
Children who fall below the norm with learning disabilities--be it speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy, or learning delays--in public schools are warehoused. End of story. Thank God this wealthy man said No, not my kid! I can't afford the attorney to get my child help. This guy said the schools suck at this, and believe me, public education has become marginal for children around the country thanks to Bush and underfunding. Can you imagine what has happened to the rest of us under IDEA? I agree with you philosophicaly, but the reality is horrible!

[wry]

Sorry NABNYC...say your kid has CANCER...do we pay for very expensive treatment at a private hospital or do we just lay him on a gurney in the hall at a public hospital? Oh, and let's not give him a doctor, the orderly can "pull him out" if he disrupts the traffic in that hall...
You have a sick opinion of children with disabilities and those that want a fair education for them. We're not neocons and we're not trying to train our children to join the military.

[NABNYC]

wry: Are you assuming that the public hospital is under-funded and incapable of providing reasonable medical care? Isn't that the point? I'm saying you keep all the kids in the same hospital if their medical care is being paid for by the taxpayer. That is the best shot at making sure we have good hospitals - because everyone's kids go there, unless they're so rich they can pay for private care.

Same is true for education. When more and more families are given the right to pull their kids out of public school (along with a big chunk of money out of the school district), and that money (my taxes) is given to private, often religious institutions/schools, then the public schools get worse and worse.

I'm saying go for what is best for the majority, and use our efforts to make public schools good for all the kids. Not pay for private schools for the elite and privileged, and leave everyone else in the dilapidated school with overcrowded and underfunded classrooms.

[Kansas Evans]

No, it's not just you. Living in a obviously classist society that tries to tell you otherwise is a dizzying experience.

Also, I cheer the decision by Supreme Court as well. Now, just for clarification, that was the current US Supreme Court? Then, before I cheer, I may have to pick my jaw up off the ground.

[Reaniel]

It wasn't a "victory" per se... Kennedy didn't vote, and the 4:4 spilt holds that the lower court's decision stands...

A victory would be the court showing that they do give a damn, and go with a 9:0 opinion...

[Kansas Evans]

Ok. I understand.

I wondered why the 5 heavy conservative bloc didn't hold.

I agree with your definition of a victory.

[dissolvethecorporation]

As a father of a Down Syndrome child who has utilized services for the disabled in several states, my experience has been that most individual teachers and case workers are dedicated and sincerely caring people. It is the program managers and school administrators that throw up roadblocks and make us feel unwanted and excluded.

[TrustInKnowledge]

There was a preposterous amount spent for inappropriate Items It total $17.7 Billion.
The CAGW Predicts that this Ridiculous amount will be even HIGHER. One of them is; Taxpayers this year will pay $10 million for additions to the Palace of Governors museum in Santa Fe, N.M
I can think of a lot of ways that $17.7 Billion could be used to help the Children of our country.

[TrustInKnowledge]

No your not wrong, in fact you have it all pretty well summed up. I have met parents of said children. I have also noticed that also it's a matter of whichever school can MAKE the government look better through "Public appeal" even if it harms the future, the children.
I believe in " No child left behind act", However, in order for it to be done CORRECTLY every child needs to have the appropriate education and assistants. If the Government would stop wasting money the publics money on ridiculous things -which are Referred to as The Pork Barrel Figures- I.E. $250,000-$500,000 -I don't have the exact numbers here at hand- on "Gold Plated Playing Cards for Air-Force Two" Instead that money and much, much more could, should be used in the appropriate Education and Assistants of the Children of our Country.
I mean after aren't the Children the Future and should we not take care of our future.
The estimated amount exceeded well over a few billion dollars. I will post Later with the exact figures as soon as I can get it pulled back up.

[LeftRight]

Unfortunately, no we're not the education or the no child left behind country. We're the get your money any way you can, and sue the hell out of everybody country.

[djinn]

I believe Tom F. donated the money back to the city. He didn't sue for the money.

[docmacy]

What a sad, cynical perspective! Fortunately as this post makes clear we are a country with many people who are willing to fight for the education of their own and other's children. We're also a country of dedicated educators who can do their jobs very well when given decent resources and support. Thanks for this excellent post, Linda.