What do you think of this article?

[Chris in VA]

It's about a school district in Ohio paying for an autistic child's education at a private school (and over 17K for transportation, too). I'm not sure how I feel about it.

 

http://akronbeaconjournal.oh.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=12b79fac6

[snowbeltmom]

I think the Akron Public School System needs to fire its attorney:

 

“It’s not very common,†said Rhonda Porter, Akron schools’ attorney. “But remember, we have a duty to provide a free and appropriate public education. Sometimes an outside school is the appropriate school, and — by law — we are required to pay for that.â€

The student’s parents or caregivers, who could not be immediately contacted because student records are sealed, would have to pay $81,792 out of pocket after applying for and receiving the state’s $20,000 autism scholarship.

By challenging Akron schools, though, tuition is paid in full. And the parent receives $17,472 annually to transport the child from Akron to Cleveland each day."

 

If the school has "a duty to provide a free and appropriate public education", why has the school system agreed to pay for a private school? There are many parents who feel that the public school is unable to meet their children's needs.  Is the city of Akron going to pay for all those kids to attend private school as well?

 

And on top of tuition, the parents are receiving over $17,000 to take their child to school.  That is opening up a huge can of worms. 

 

 

[LNC]

Probably more to the story - proof the child was harmed in his environment, frequent restraint etc.

[bolt.]

If it simply costs less to outsource special needs students into an excellent program -- compared to the total cost of making arrangements and modifications to serve those students in existing classrooms, I think it's wise.

 

If it's a cop-out and a desire not to have to deal with these students -- leading to paying more just to get it off their plate... Kind of an approach that shows a mindset towards segregating "those" kids away from "normal" people: I'd question whether that's an educational decision or an emotional reaction.

 

If it's a fraudulent kick-back deal involving schools and school boards, that's a problem... But it still sounds like the student(s) are being well educated.

[zoobie]

There's a whole bunch of relevant detail missing. It's not unheard of for a district to pay for private placement for a child with special needs. Sometimes it's more efficient to do that than try to recreate the wheel at the district level. A dear friend's DH runs a school for kids with communication issues (used to be school for deaf) who has kids enrolled and bussed in from multiple districts around a large metro area. They still have to fundraise and rely on corporate donations. It's extremely expensive to create an appropriate environment for some children. If the district has no other children who need sign language instruction for example, or don't own the technology that's used--it's cheaper to place the student in a private facility. There was a guy in my high school who was deaf. His parents refused placement at the very good, private school for the deaf, so the district paid for him to have an interpreter during the school day, with another overlapping lunch and extracurriculars (I think he played football?), technology (in as much as it existed then), etc. His going to the private school would've been way cheaper for the district.

 

And perhaps there are past issues of abuse at the public school. There have been a few cases around me where parents had to go to the media with their recordings of abuse to their nonverbal children. Ultimately the districts agreed to private placement. Or they had to turn to the courts.

[kewb]

Not uncommon in my school district. If the public school is not equipped for the child it may be less expensive in the long run to send them to a private school that can meet the needs of the child.

 

To be honest, I struggle with the expense when it is time to vote on the school budget.

[SKL]

Hard to say without more facts.  My autistic cousin was in (state-paid) residential treatment by school age, and I venture a guess that cost more than $80,000 per year in today's dollars.

 

I have friends near this location with autistic kids, and one of them has her kid in a private school.  She pays for it partly with the scholarship, partly by working at the school, partly by fundraising, and probably from other family sources too.  Her son is a lot higher functioning than my cousin ever was; a lower functioning child might need even more special accommodations than even my friend's school offers.

 

On the other hand, one wonders whether the $84K would be less if there were no chance for the public schools to pay it.  IOW are they inflating the cost because they can get it from the government?  I can't tell by looking.

 

Severe autism can be so very devastating and hard to address.  For now I will assume that there were lots of facts we don't know that led to the conclusion they led to.

[chiguirre]

This case went to a due process hearing, so my guess is that the Akron school district thought it would lose the case. Probably, the parents had evidence of regression or abuse. Several kids at GW's school are bussed from a school district an hour away. They are all physically adults who are functionally nonverbal and have aggressive outbursts. I'm sure that their home district decided it was cheaper to send them to a private school than it would be to hire staff to educate them in house. Very few families pay oop at GW's school because it costs about as much as the Akron school, even though it's located in a shopping center without a play ground. Either their home school district pays or private medical insurance covers a large chunk and the family covers their deductible and copay (which is still a lot of money, there are no kids from poor or even middle class families on medical insurance). Autism is incredibly expensive and it's not just the parents of the kids on the spectrum who pay, although we do bear the brunt of the burden.

[bettyandbob]

If the school was not providing FAPE (free appropriate public education) in it's own facilities then it must pay to provide that elsewhere. Either this child has more problems than we can understand from the article or the school district messed up badly in their previous placement of the child. In messing up badly there is a trail a documentation showing that the child was not making adequate progress in the environment the school district gave him.

[Dmmetler]

My former district set up a 24-5 wrap around residential program for teens with autism who had violent behaviors and needed the consistency because a pair of parents, one of whom was a special Ed teacher, and one of whom was a lawyer got a group of parents behind them, filed a lawsuit to get outside placements, won, and then offered their services to help the district set up something locally. It serves kids from several area districts, with the outside district students paying for transportation and the state money for each child being directed to the local district.

 

I believe if cost something like 30k/yr per child-but the private placements the court approved would have been about 100k/yr.

 

I wonder if this case is something similar-that the local schools won't set anything up until it's cost-effective for them to do so, so the long-term goal really isn't the private placement, but local change.

[SKL]

Akron is a troubled school district.  Many parents of NT kids would love to find a way to get their kids educated elsewhere.  I can't see too many wanting to fight to bring the kids back into the local schools after getting a good private placement on the government dime.

[wonderchica]

I used to work at a private school for children with severe autism and traumatic brain injuries. Most of the children were middle and high school age. The classrooms had a maximum of three kids with two teachers- usually with additional aid or therapist. Everything was one on one because the kids couldn't handle anything else. These were non-verbal, highly aggressive kids who would hit/kick/bite as soon as they saw you. Part of your written job requirements was to be able to quickly run short distances to reach the kids for their safety and yours. These are NOT children who could function in public school, and the public schools could not provide for their needs. They regularly paid tuition to send kids out of county, 1-2 hours by bus to this school. Public schools are simply not equipped to deal with this level of need. It would be outrageously more expensive, as well as extremely difficult to staff. You can imagine the high burn out rate when you're being attacked by 16 year olds on a weekly basis. The public perception of autism is very often of much higher functioning individuals.

[albeto.]

School districts would do well to learn to incorporate proven techniques into their own educational environment rather than outsourcing it as necessary. Each child is guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education, and if the local community educational center cannot provide it, they are required to pay for the place that can. This is a law that has come on the back of much blood, sweat, and tears of special needs children who have been neglected, abused, and punished for such "crimes" as behaving in an expected way in an environment not set up to accommodate them. Many families end up homeschooling because their schools cannot accommodate the needs of their children, and do not have the recourse to either take the school to Fair Hearing, or succeed in a FH trial. There may exist no such environment to serve the special needs child. Homeschooling becomes the default for a family that doesn't want to relinquish their custody of their child to the state because their behavior is difficult and beyond the scope of what the local teachers are able to accommodate. It can be stressful, overwhelmingly so. Society benefits when the people's needs are taken care of in the most cost effective way, and sometimes that means public funds are used for a small group. In my opinion, the public education system would do well to learn to incorporate special needs on campus. Special needs kids aren't going away, and private school costs a hell of a lot less than life in prison for those who never do learn the social skills necessary to succeed independently. 

[Seasider]

If that child required a dedicated employee or two, the salaries could easily add up to cost as much, plus the district would have to handle everything (provide space and tailor curriculum, human resource issues, etcetera), so I can see the rationale behind outsourcing.

 

However, it does sound shocking on the surface. Also, just how many kids can a school district handle this way? On the taxpayer dollar?

[Kim in Appalachia]

This happens elsewhere. A friend's son in Jersey will be attending a private school, with the state kicking in $20,000 a year to cover the cost, because her district doesn't have a program for her son.  I guess they figure it's cheaper than creating a program themselves.  She'll still need to kick in more money (or, hopefully get assistance), because the tution is so high. She has a year to figure it out.  The school had a waiting list, so she is homeschooling for a year.  

[chiguirre]

 Also, just how many kids can a school district handle this way? On the taxpayer dollar?

 

If it's not the school district (with state and federal funding paid to them), who will handle these kids?

 

I once had someone tell me that parents of special needs kids just send them to school for the free babysitting. She was shocked when I pointed out that truancy laws apply to ALL children. So, you either send your nonverbal, aggressive kid to school or you have to homeschool them.

[Slartibartfast]

My MIL works with special needs children for a school district. Some children she works with are severely disabled. It is probably cheaper in some situations to send children to a special school than pay for the extra staff and accommodations that might be needed.

[mom31257]

It's hard for me to say without knowing everything, but I would hate to live in a community and be known as the family who fought for that kind of funding. Taxpayers could resent me tremendously and feel that money is being taken away from their children's education. 

 

I have a special needs nephew, but my sister chose to stay home with him and homeschool him. He's 20 and developmentally about 3-4. She didn't think it was fair to ask the school system to put out a lot of money caring for him instead of educating the students who would grow up and be a contributing member of society. They worked hard to keep their lifestyle in such a way as to live on one income so that she could be home. 

 

 

 

[Dmmetler]

I think a lot depends on the size of the district. My area has somewhere around 100K students living in the attendance area (somewhere around because district boundaries keep changing-we went from 2 districts, to 1, to something like 6 in the last three years), So for a district of that size,it's reasonable to have the highly specialized programs, and they do. Along with the autism residential program, there are two district full-day special day schools, one for medically fragile children with multiple disabilities, which was originally set up in conjunction with the Shriners. organization, and one for younger children with autism and severe cognitive disabilities (some of which will go into the 24-5 program when they get older if they need that level of staffing). Actually, that was one thing I felt that district did right-they really did a good job of providing specialized services for kids at the extreme low end. They don't do nearly so well with the kids on the high end, who tend to get "included" with few supports.

 

In a small town that may only have 1-2 kids who have low incidence disabilities, that's not going to be an option, but it really doesn't make sense for large districts to NOT provide such services in-house. There are also often federal and private grants available for the initial start-up/building conversion costs of such a program, which is what helped set up the one here.

 

 

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

It happens in our area.  There is a school here in town for kids with severe disabilities due to autism that cannot be managed in a regular school environment.  I did a fundraising event for them and saw, first-hand, what they are dealing with.  Kids get bussed from all over to go to this school.  The set up is very different than a public school.  Most, if not all, of these kids would simply not be able to function in a public school, even in more self-contained environments. My friend is a SLP (edited to correct) at the local public high school dealing with kids with autism.  She gets the kids who can function in a high school without getting violent and she gets the graduates from this special school.  From her point of view, it is much more cost effective to send these kids to a location specially designed for them than to try to replicate that in a school.  Yes, it is expensive.  Ask any parent of a child with autism. 

 

 

[SKL]

 but it really doesn't make sense for large districts to NOT provide such services in-house.

 

It depends on the type of disability.  Severe autism is pretty rare and very specialized training is required to educate them.  They also require a different kind of physical environment.  I don't know how every school district could possibly have someone on staff who is properly trained to educate these kids; I don't think the teachers with that training (and desire to work with such kids) are very numerous (though I could be wrong).  If districts felt like they had to accommodate all these kids, I can only imagine how some of them would handle staff recruitment and training, quite possibly to the detriment of the kids.

 

[mom31257]

One question I had is why the student would be eligible for a free education until age 22. Does Ohio provide a free college education for everyone? Are students allowed to stay in high school until age 22? It seems to me that providing for special needs students until age 18 should suffice. 

[bettyandbob]

Student who recieve special education services are eligible for services from ages 2 until the year of their 22d birthday. This is based on Federal law passed in 1975. Before this law was passed school districts routinely provided no educational services to children with special needs. Students who had no intellectual problems, but had physical disabilities were denied school access. Students with mild learning issues were denied.

[Chris in VA]

Thanks so much for the discussion. Someone linked it on FB (my hometown page) so they weren't a homeschooling community like this one--and one of my friends was discussing how she felt it was unfair to the child as a "specialized" environment wouldn't prepare the child for the "real world."

 

I was all over that. LOL....

[bettyandbob]

Thanks so much for the discussion. Someone linked it on FB (my hometown page) so they weren't a homeschooling community like this one--and one of my friends was discussing how she felt it was unfair to the child as a "specialized" environment wouldn't prepare the child for the "real world."

 

I was all over that. LOL....

A specialized environment may be the only thing that makes it possible for the child to eventually experience "the real world."

[SKL]

One question I had is why the student would be eligible for a free education until age 22. Does Ohio provide a free college education for everyone? Are students allowed to stay in high school until age 22? It seems to me that providing for special needs students until age 18 should suffice. 

 

Yes, possibly even longer, or until they graduate high school with a regular diploma, if that happens first.  Nowadays with delayed KG entrance, many kids are turning 19 around their graduation date even if they never repeat.  And many kids who repeat are going to be 19 or even 20 when they graduate.

 

When I was in school, one of the seniors was 21.  A bright and personable guy, but in my old age and wisdom, I realize he must have had some undiagnosed learning disability.  He kept failing English because he would not turn in papers.  He flunked again that year, and then he dropped out of school.  I think they would have let him try again if he wanted to.  He was not a special ed student.

[SKL]

Kids who are so disabled that they need to be in special ed high school until age 22 are going to continue needing public support their whole lives.  If the school system can give them what they need up to age 22, that is great.

 

I used to be skeptical, but I have come to believe that there is significant benefit to society when most special needs kids have the chance to be out in the world interacting with typical kids and adults.

[chiguirre]

One question I had is why the student would be eligible for a free education until age 22. Does Ohio provide a free college education for everyone? Are students allowed to stay in high school until age 22? It seems to me that providing for special needs students until age 18 should suffice. 

 

The extra years are meant to help prepare sn students to develop basic work skills and (hopefully) prepare to hold a job. TBH, most of them won't be able to handle anything but sheltered workshops, but they do try. They also concentrate on life skills: shopping, preparing simple meals, using appliances, simple budgeting, etc.

 

[Dmmetler]

It depends on the type of disability. Severe autism is pretty rare and very specialized training is required to educate them. They also require a different kind of physical environment. I don't know how every school district could possibly have someone on staff who is properly trained to educate these kids; I don't think the teachers with that training (and desire to work with such kids) are very numerous (though I could be wrong). If districts felt like they had to accommodate all these kids, I can only imagine how some of them would handle staff recruitment and training, quite possibly to the detriment of the kids.

 

In a district with over 100k students, though, there are enough such kids to make it worth providing such a program. My district's program isn't huge, but it still saves the district about 50k/yr per student by providing it in-house. The same need for staffing is going to apply whether it is a private program or a public one. The ideal would be for every child to have access to such a program in their neighborhood and community, but realistically, that's not financially viable in small communities.

[Alessandra]

The article did not surprise me at all. My state, NJ, has a high proportion of students out of district. A good number of my friends have kids out of district. Districts here tend to be small, and in district is often not appropriate.

 

Kids who are sent out of district may go to another district that has an appropriate program, or to a county run program, or to a specialized private school or even to a residential school.

 

Ideally, kids could remain in district. Most districts are trying to set up more programs to fill common needs, such as LLD or mild to moderate autism. But there are still lots of kids also need something more.

 

It is tough for kids to be out of district, because they do not have many school friends in their home district. Most towns around here make a lot of effort to provide after school programming, recreation, and sports for SN kids. I know a number if kids who have individual teachers/aides to help them after school.

 

Student who recieve special education services are eligible for services from ages 2 until the year of their 22d birthday. This is based on Federal law passed in 1975. Before this law was passed school districts routinely provided no educational services to children with special needs. Students who had no intellectual problems, but had physical disabilities were denied school access. Students with mild learning issues were denied.

This.

 

And services after age 18 can include workplace skills, jobs with support from a job coach, if a kid has finished school.