Susan's Blog

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A Curse on All Their Heads

My friend Michael Goldberg is my special needs news resource. Autism Bulletin is an excellent, no-nonsense, smart and elegant presentation of national special needs news stories, especially about autism. Today I read about a court case where the Supreme Court was tied regarding a New York City family, thereby allowing a lower court ruling to stand. So the family who had sued the city for cost of their child with LD won in this case. First I jumped to the conclusion that the family had been wronged by NYC and had triumphed. Then I learned that this was pretty much what I refer to as a “private school family,” one who sends their children to private school from the start. So when the family learned that their child had a disability, they asserted their rights under the law to public money for services, and the school system has to pay.

From what an NPR Marketplace report said, it does not appear that the family ever even tried the public school program. This sounds piggish, but it is not clear what they did; they may have explored the public school offering without actually sending their kid, knowing it was sub-par. Unfortunately the reporting makes it seem that the family, who is very wealthy, was acting piggish and snobby as opposed to possibly acting in the child’s best interests, not wanting to see the child fail first and founder in the public school.

I was once offered a public school placement for Nat at our high school that I never sent him to. I could tell that it would be too great a leap. I could not even get assurance that Nat’s aide would have special ABA training. I could not get a tour of the vocational component. So I said “no thanks,” sight unseen and continued to send him to his hugely expensive private program, at the town’s expense. Why should I consent to put Nat at risk like that? I know what the wrong supports can mean (read the book if you don’t know).

And so I reserve judgment on this case because I don’t know enough of the behind-the-scenes. It feels a bit unsavory to me, considering that the family always sends all their kids to private schools, and yet it could also be that in this child’s case, it was right to do so. Ability to pay is not a part of the IDEA, nor should it be. But I do confess that there are many, many services I have paid for on my own because I just couldn’t bring myself to ask my overburdened school system to pay. But — why are they overburdened?

Because state and federal legislators refuse to raise enough taxes to pay for the public education they have legislated because they want to hold onto their powerful jobs!!!! A curse on all their heads, as my great grandmother Sarel Wolfson used to say, referring to the Bolsheviks and the Tsar and his henchmen, the vile Cossacki.

Justice Anthony Kennedy apparently recused himself. When Ned told me this, we both looked at each other and said at the same time, “He must be a grandfather…”

In the end, is politics always personal? Is that inevitable, that we are informed by our personal experiences, but then we must strive to see beyond that and think of the Greater Good? But what is the Greater Good? I know, but do you? Of course you do, but we may disagree…

4 comments

Having lived in Texas the first couple of years post-diagnosis, let me tell you, resources are frightening!

We privately placed Jack while living there at our own expense … ($60,000 plus a year = financial devastation) Fortunately, we were able to do it. If we hadn’t, our public school system (one of the most prestigous in the state by the way…) said that he belonged in a typical preschool class with NO AIDE and 4 hours of therapy A MONTH!!! (Jack is on the severe end of the spectrum …) We hired an attorney, dotted all of our i’s and crossed all of our t’s … and got absolutely nowhere. In the meantime, the clock of early intervention was ticking, ticking, ticking…

When we moved to MA over the summer, our SPED director promptly threw his Texas IEP in the trash … thank God. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but for God sakes, at least she’s trying. We are still in the evaluation stage, but after 2 weeks the district came to the realization that Jack would have to be placed out of district. We are now looking at private schools and other districts. I’m holding my breath …

So, although I wish this case had set some precedent, at least it wasn’t a loss. Tom F. is donating his winnings to NY public schools is my understanding. And I think it was a principle-setting issue … Not about the money. (Did you see the article in the WSJ?)

I’m thankful for people like him who are pushing that IDEA be properly enforced. I hope it trickles down to those crazy red states where I grew up. The chasm in services is incomprehensible!!!

AND, when are the Feds going to pony up their 40%, by the way…Unfunded mandate. Wow, that really helps .. thanks so much..

Sorry for the rant. Can you say hot button?

— added by Autismville on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 9:26 am

Susan, I’ve been following this one closely, too. From what I understand from the summary information at Wrightslaw.com, the family did investigate the program but knew it would not be appropriate. As I understand, the father has turned around and donated all of the cash reimbursed to provide tutoring in public schools. There is another NY case which the SC may decide to hear. Obviously, at some point in the very near future, they will need to weigh in on the issue and set a legal precedent for all school to follow. One thing I think they will need to establish is what threshhold consitutes “enough” before a parent can take their child out of a failing situation? How far behind does a child have to fall?

BTW, I think I read in the NYT today that this decision impacts NY, CT and MA…maybe you could recoup some of the funds you’ve set forth?

— added by Niksmom on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 10:11 am

Yes, several other sources have noted that he has, and will continue to, donate the reimbursement funds. His intent seems to be to set a precedent so that others less well-resourced don’t have such a slugfest with the city. (Such a small percentage of those with true need are able to get reimbursement.)

The concept of “first you have to try something that won’t work” is wrong. As one commenter on the NYT story said, “Honestly, would you like it if your doctor forced you to undergo painful useless treatment to prove that it was inappropriate before allowing you to access the medical intervention you really need?”

— added by Anonymous on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:05 pm

See Wrightslaw.com’s latest newsletter for a complete analysis of the case. Below is an excerpt:


The favorable decision on behalf of the parents and child stands for families who live in the Second Circuit – Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

However, the failure of the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling on this issue means that the case has no precedential value beyond the 2nd Circuit. The decision is, in essence, a nullity, i.e., the case never went beyond the 2nd Circuit.

The article continues and points out that the SCOTUS may also take up a related matter tomorrow.

Full decision (PDF)

— added by Anonymous on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 4:56 pm