Re: law vs interpretation-thank you.

[Guest guest]

If the school agrees they are not meeting his needs and placed him in a

private school, they would still be legally responsible for services.

If the schools do not admit they are not meeting his needs and you place him

in a private school at your option, he may still get services. The public

schools have to provide services to private schools students, according to

the number of private school students that needs services. Private school

students are not entitled to services, the public schools decide how the

money is spent and who gets what. Due process doesn't apply, so arguing

FAPE doesn't matter. (FAPE is a Free, Appropriate PUBLIC Education. FAPE

doesn't apply outside a public school placement.)

I was avoiding saying it before because it sounds harsh, but no, the school

doesn't have to provide services if you homeschool. Federal law doesn't

address homeschoolers, so it's up to the states' definitions of

homeschooling to determine whether homeschoolers fall inside or outside

private schools, which are addressed by IDEA. In some states, homeschoolers

qualify as private schools, and can receive services as above. In many

states, homeschoolers are separate from private schools, and the public

schools can legally provide nothing. Public schools are specifically

allowed to provide services to homeschoolers, but this is over and above

their obligations, and not all school districts offer it. It isn't an

interpretation of the law, it's simply at their option.

At least, that's how I understand it.

> Thank you very much! According to this, what I understand, is that if my

> regional school had been the one to place him in this private school, then

> they would be responsible for his OT, PT and AV therapies. If I was the

> one who decided to enroll him in private preschool, then I would be

> responsible for the services UNLESS I went to a hearing to prove that the

> school wasn't able to provide a FAPE.

>

> Now here's where my AV therapist was correct in saying it was an

> interpretation of the law: If the school would cooperate with us and

> agree that Bobby does not belong in kindergarten (and there were many

> times during this meeting that there were head nods about his lack of

> understanding and gaps from this late hearing loss diagnosis) then they

> COULD pay for the services. There would be nothing illegal about that,

> and he'd go off to kindergarten in the public school next year instead of

> this year. But if they stay stubborn and say it is OUR idea and they're

> " supporting him " well in kindergarten already, then they have no

> obligation to pay for anything.

>