The Po Show

Legal Precedent, Motherfu**er!!

Don't ask me why I'm suddenly shy about using the f word. It just seemed inappropriate, because I'm NOT calling the Chair of the CSE (Committee on Special Education) a motherfucker, I'm really not. She's very nice, and has a really hard and overwhelming job, and she genuinely wants to help my child.

But I am STOKED that I found, just 5 minutes ago, a perfect argument to counter what I know she is going to say at Friday's meeting. I knew what her approach was going to be already, but it was confirmed for me when she called yesterday afternoon.

Frankly I was quite startled that she called. It's absolutely unprecedented for the chair to call prior to a meeting. I think she was trying to head me off at the pass a bit, by saying that she knew we were interested in the gifted special education program. She started off the call very upbeat, saying she was committed to getting Matthew the help he needed (and I do believe she is) and doing what we can to make things work for him. She then launched into her shpiel about how they have a legal obligation, and a desire as well, to keep kids in the district and provide them with services internally. I said I understood that, but despite the best efforts of a wonderful team who has tried SO hard to help Matthew, inclusion is not working out, and hasn't been working for a long time. She animatedly said that that is why she wants to look at increasing his services, giving him an aide all day (oh FUCK ME, if they had done that 2 years ago when I requested it, a lot of the trauma that Matthew has suffered might have been averted! But it's too late now), bringing in a behavioral specialist to work with him, blah blah blah.

She could tell after a bit that I wasn't going for it, though. I told her that I had looked into the gifted special ed program in depth, that I'd heard the school psych. and inclusion teacher's description of the class, and I really felt that it was the best fit for him. Her voice noticeably changed, and she said certainly we could talk about it at the meeting. She said she'd give the school psych. a call again. Then we hung up, me still wondering exactly what just happened. I guess we both showed our cards, and now know where the other stands going into Friday, which is just fine. I'm relieved that she agreed with me that he doesn't belong in a self-contained special ed. class (which had been my fear, that they were going to argue that that was the next step in the progression of placements).

But now I know she's going to lean heavily on the least restrictive environment argument, that placing him in a special program is too restrictive, and that they are legally bound to keep him within the framework of mainstreaming.

BUT I just found legal language to kick that in the teeth: Hartmann v. Loudon County, U.S. Court of Appeals. "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."

Meaning, keeping kids with disabilities in with kids without disabilities is all well and good, but only if the disabled child is LEARNING SATISFACTORILY. Matthew is below grade level in basically all subjects, critically so in several areas. This is ABSURD, considering how intelligent he is (as measured by a slew of assessments and standardized tests). So clearly, this just ain't working out, folks, and it's time to move on.

Oh, and BTW, I commented to her that since he was suspended three times in five weeks, his current situation was definitely not working out, and she replied that she didn't think he should have been suspended. She thought that "his service providers should have done more to make sure he wasn't suspended." I think she recognizes this is a sensitive area, and shows definite evidence of the deficiencies of the services he's been provided, which puts them in a more precarious position. I'm going to emphasize this at the meeting, right in front of the assistant principal, by saying, "How can we be assured this wouldn't continue in the future, if he did stay here in inclusion?"

In your FACE!