Re:PLEASE READ THE LAWS and CASES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN

[Guest guest]



Jess,

After you read the actual IDEA and caselaw, I am so glad that you now agree and realize that segregation SHOULD only occur when it has been shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment WITH the support and services that the individual child needs.

In the Final Order from the Hartmann Case that you shared with the group, it was not only shown that Mark (the student) WAS NOT progressing academically, but the Final Order also indicated that Mark's misbehaviors included, among many others: "hitting, pinching, kicking, biting, sucking the leg of a chair, rolling on the floor, and removing his shoes and clothing." The Order also indicates that he had daily "loud screeching outbursts" and that he "hits and pinches others several times a day." http://openjurist.org/118/f3d/996/hartmann-hartmann-v-loudoun-county-board-of-education-b

The magical thing about this case is that the child WAS integrated in the gen ed classroom for an ENTIRE YEAR, and was THEN shown not to progress and to be (obviously!) disruptive.

Even more note-worthy in this case is the tremendous amount of INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTS AND SERVICES that Mark was given in order to facilitate his inclusion: (From that Final Order:)

"To facilitate Mark's inclusion, Loudoun officials carefully selected his teacher, hired a FULL-TIME AIDE to assist him, and put him in a SMALLER CLASS with more independent children. Mark's teacher, Diane , read extensively about autism, and both and Mark's aide, Suz Leitner, received TRAINING IN FACILITATED COMMUNICATION, a special communication technique used with autistic children. Mark received FIVE HOURS PER WEEK OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY with a qualified specialist, Carolyn Clement. Halfway through the year, Virginia McCullough, a special education teacher, was assigned to provide Mark with THREE HOURS OF INSTRUCTION A WEEK and to advise Mark's teacher and aide." http://openjurist.org/118/f3d/996/hartmann-hartmann-v-loudoun-county-board-of-education-b

(Compare THAT to Broward County's attempt at INLCUSION what amounts to a verbal dispersuasion like "No one wants our children to be "on Stage" in a typical classroom")

So EVEN IN a case such as this where the School was the successful litigant, the IDEA law was NOT broken as it IS every day in Broward County for every single student who is never placed in the Gen Ed environment AT ALL!

Thank you so much for sharing that case which shows what attempted INTEGRATION looks like!

PLEASE READ THE LAWS and CASES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN

Posted by: "Jess Montado" montadoj@... montadoj

Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:56 am (PDT)

Hartmann v. Loudon County: Educational Benefit v. Mainstreaming Preference In 1997, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a favorable decision in an inclusion case, Mark Hartmann v. Loudon County. The Court found that mainstreaming or inclusion is secondary to the need to provide a free appropriate education from which the child receives educational benefit:"The mainstreaming provision represents recognition of the value of having disabled children interact with non-handicapped students. The fact that the provision only creates a presumption, however, reflects a congressional judgment that receipt of such social benefits is ultimately a goal subordinate to the requirement that disabled children receive educational benefit.""... the IDEA’s mainstreaming provision establishes a presumption, not an inflexible federal mandate. Under its terms, disabled children are to be educated with children who are not handicapped only "to the maximum extent appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(. Section 1412(5)( explicitly states that mainstreaming is not appropriate "when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(; see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181 n.4." In Hartmann, the Court held that:" . . . we specifically held that mainstreaming is inappropriate when "the handicapped child is a disruptive force in the non-segregated setting." 882 F.2d at 879 (quoting Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6th Cir. 1983)). In this case, disruptive behavior was clearly an issue."N.R. v. Kingwood Township: Continuum of PlacementsIn N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified "meaningful benefit" as the requirement to offer a "continuum of placements," and the requirement to provide a "free appropriate education (FAPE)" in the "least restrictive environment."The case involved N.R., a child who was found eligible for special education services at age 3. The district developed an IEP that placed him in a "hybrid" preschool program, described as "a single, half-day preschool class composed of half disabled children and half non-disabled children." His parents rejected the district's IEP and placed their child in a private preschool program."Significant Learning" & "Meaningful Educational Benefit"Many special education disputes involve questions about FAPE and educational benefit. In N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), the court clarified "educational benefit": "Specifically . . a satisfactory IEP must provide "significant learning" and confer "meaningful benefit." What Does the Law Say About LRE?  The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers: "While the Act and regulations recognize that IEP teams must make individualized decisions about the special education ... IDEA’s strong preference that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities be educated in regular classes with their nondisabled peers with appropriate supplementary aids and services."

[Guest guest]



Jess,

After you read the actual IDEA and caselaw, I am so glad that you now agree and realize that segregation SHOULD only occur when it has been shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment WITH the support and services that the individual child needs.

In the Final Order from the Hartmann Case that you shared with the group, it was not only shown that Mark (the student) WAS NOT progressing academically, but the Final Order also indicated that Mark's misbehaviors included, among many others: "hitting, pinching, kicking, biting, sucking the leg of a chair, rolling on the floor, and removing his shoes and clothing." The Order also indicates that he had daily "loud screeching outbursts" and that he "hits and pinches others several times a day." http://openjurist.org/118/f3d/996/hartmann-hartmann-v-loudoun-county-board-of-education-b

The magical thing about this case is that the child WAS integrated in the gen ed classroom for an ENTIRE YEAR, and was THEN shown not to progress and to be (obviously!) disruptive.

Even more note-worthy in this case is the tremendous amount of INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTS AND SERVICES that Mark was given in order to facilitate his inclusion: (From that Final Order:)

"To facilitate Mark's inclusion, Loudoun officials carefully selected his teacher, hired a FULL-TIME AIDE to assist him, and put him in a SMALLER CLASS with more independent children. Mark's teacher, Diane , read extensively about autism, and both and Mark's aide, Suz Leitner, received TRAINING IN FACILITATED COMMUNICATION, a special communication technique used with autistic children. Mark received FIVE HOURS PER WEEK OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY with a qualified specialist, Carolyn Clement. Halfway through the year, Virginia McCullough, a special education teacher, was assigned to provide Mark with THREE HOURS OF INSTRUCTION A WEEK and to advise Mark's teacher and aide." http://openjurist.org/118/f3d/996/hartmann-hartmann-v-loudoun-county-board-of-education-b

(Compare THAT to Broward County's attempt at INLCUSION what amounts to a verbal dispersuasion like "No one wants our children to be "on Stage" in a typical classroom")

So EVEN IN a case such as this where the School was the successful litigant, the IDEA law was NOT broken as it IS every day in Broward County for every single student who is never placed in the Gen Ed environment AT ALL!

Thank you so much for sharing that case which shows what attempted INTEGRATION looks like!

PLEASE READ THE LAWS and CASES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN

Posted by: "Jess Montado" montadoj@... montadoj

Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:56 am (PDT)

Hartmann v. Loudon County: Educational Benefit v. Mainstreaming Preference In 1997, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a favorable decision in an inclusion case, Mark Hartmann v. Loudon County. The Court found that mainstreaming or inclusion is secondary to the need to provide a free appropriate education from which the child receives educational benefit:"The mainstreaming provision represents recognition of the value of having disabled children interact with non-handicapped students. The fact that the provision only creates a presumption, however, reflects a congressional judgment that receipt of such social benefits is ultimately a goal subordinate to the requirement that disabled children receive educational benefit.""... the IDEA’s mainstreaming provision establishes a presumption, not an inflexible federal mandate. Under its terms, disabled children are to be educated with children who are not handicapped only "to the maximum extent appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(. Section 1412(5)( explicitly states that mainstreaming is not appropriate "when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(; see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181 n.4." In Hartmann, the Court held that:" . . . we specifically held that mainstreaming is inappropriate when "the handicapped child is a disruptive force in the non-segregated setting." 882 F.2d at 879 (quoting Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6th Cir. 1983)). In this case, disruptive behavior was clearly an issue."N.R. v. Kingwood Township: Continuum of PlacementsIn N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified "meaningful benefit" as the requirement to offer a "continuum of placements," and the requirement to provide a "free appropriate education (FAPE)" in the "least restrictive environment."The case involved N.R., a child who was found eligible for special education services at age 3. The district developed an IEP that placed him in a "hybrid" preschool program, described as "a single, half-day preschool class composed of half disabled children and half non-disabled children." His parents rejected the district's IEP and placed their child in a private preschool program."Significant Learning" & "Meaningful Educational Benefit"Many special education disputes involve questions about FAPE and educational benefit. In N.R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ), the court clarified "educational benefit": "Specifically . . a satisfactory IEP must provide "significant learning" and confer "meaningful benefit." What Does the Law Say About LRE?  The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers: "While the Act and regulations recognize that IEP teams must make individualized decisions about the special education ... IDEA’s strong preference that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities be educated in regular classes with their nondisabled peers with appropriate supplementary aids and services."