Coppell schools ordered to compensate family of special-needs child

[Guest guest]

Coppell schools ordered to compensate family of special-needs child

Coppell ISD: Special ed student to be partly repaid for tutor but not

private schooling

09:10 PM CST on Thursday, January 10, 2008

By STELLA M. CHÁVEZ / The Dallas Morning News

schavez@...

The Coppell Independent School District has been ordered to pay for 20 hours

of private tutoring for a former student with special needs who received

failing grades in three classes during the 2006-07 school year.

The decision, released to the school district and parents this week, also

says the district must reimburse the boy's parents for mileage for taking

their son, , to and from tutoring services.

Amy Sosa, 's mom, said the ruling is a partial win but not entirely what

the family had wanted – reimbursement for the 14-year-old boy's private

school education at The St. School in Carrollton.

" We thought we had a good chance of prevailing on some or part of it, and

yet at the same time, we knew that the likelihood of parents prevailing in

due process hearings in the state of Texas is almost zero. It's slim to

none, " she said.

Coppell ISD officials said they were pleased with the decision.

" It's very clear that the hearing officer felt we more than met the

student's needs and provided an appropriate education, " said Melody

Paschall, executive director of intervention services for Coppell ISD. " I

was very confident that our teachers and everyone that was involved with

this student did everything possible in order to make him successful, so I

felt comfortable we would receive this type of decision. "

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, requires

school districts to provide a " free appropriate public education " to

students with disabilities.

In some cases, courts have ruled that public schools must reimburse parents

for special services and instruction provided by private schools and

therapists. But such rulings are rare. More often than not, rulings favor

school districts.

suffers from a form of autism as well as a range of other disabilities.

His parents said fellow students repeatedly bullied him and twice assaulted

him at school. The Sosas said the district failed to follow 's

individual education plan or provide the tools he needed to learn.

Mrs. Sosa said her son's treatment and the district's response led to their

decision to proceed with a due process hearing, a trial-like proceeding in

which an impartial hearing officer hears testimony from witnesses for a

special education student's family and for the school district.

The Sosas opened the hearing to the public so others could understand the

legal process in special education cases.

In the state of Texas, due process hearings – especially public ones – are

rare. Most cases are resolved before they get to the hearing stage.

Beinke, an advocate for special education children, said the Sosas won

only a small piece of a large and ongoing battle between parents of children

with special needs and school districts. But he is dismayed that such a

battle reached the level of due process hearing.

" The fact that you had to go seek the wisdom of the hearing officer means

that you missed some opportunities, " he said. " It shows that the partnership

that IDEA contemplates somewhere was lost. "

In his findings, hearing officer Holtz states that the Sosas failed to

prove that the district did not provide their son a free appropriate

education prior to his enrollment in a private school. He also said the

parents failed to present sufficient evidence that was bullied and

harassed or that the school district failed to appropriately investigate

such claims.

But Mr. Holtz did not leave the school district entirely blameless. He noted

that the district violated IDEA and denied a free appropriate public

education because it did not hold the required annual admission, review and

dismissal – or ARD – committee meeting on time. The district also failed to

complete the student's federally mandated triennial evaluation in a timely

manner.

Mr. Holtz determined that during this time, performed poorly

academically and received failing semester grades in language arts and

science and a failing six-weeks grade in math.

Ms. Paschall said the district's delay in producing an evaluation or

conducting an ARD meeting was a " procedural error " that happened because the

district was waiting on independent evaluation that the parents had

requested. While Mr. Holtz acknowledged the district's claims, he said that

the district could have completed its own evaluation in a timely manner.

According to Mr. Holtz's findings, the evaluation was supposed to have been

completed by April 21, but was not done until June 15 and not reviewed by an

ARD committee until July 17.

Nona s, the attorney who represented the school district, said she

was not surprised by the decision or that Mr. Holtz found some fault with

the district. Overall, she said she was happy with the verdict.

Amy A. Sosa

amy.sosa@...

Coppell, Texas

Home/Office -

Fax -

Cell -