by 
Wayne Steedman, Esq., Guest Columnist

Many special education attorneys and advocates know that LRP Publications sponsored a series of workshops around the country called "Building a Blueprint for Defensible Autism Programs." 

On October 28, 1999, I attended one of these seminars. 

I am an attorney who represents children with disabilities and their families exclusively. My purpose in going "behind enemy lines" was to learn about new strategies that school systems might use to avoid providing these children with the services they need. 

The instructors for "Building a Blueprint for Defensible Autism Programs" were Melissa Genaux, educational consultant, and Melinda Maloney Baird, Esq., attorney. Both Genaux and Baird work exclusively for school systems. Because the workshop focused on "defensible" (not "effective") autism programs, I assumed that the workshop would teach public school employees how to defeat parents at due process hearings, while providing minimal services to children with autism. 

"Pleasantly Surprised" Although the LRP presentation was clearly aimed at school personnel, I was pleasantly surprised by some of their recommendations. 

For example, while both presenters emphasized the general rule that the school system chooses methodology, and both recommended an "eclectic" instructional approach, they presented a more balanced program than I expected.

Melissa Genaux stressed the need to offer a variety of programs because all children with autism do not respond to the same teaching methods. She expressed the belief that an eclectic approach is best "both educationally and legally." 

Put Educators on a More "Equal Footing" with Parents  Ms. Genaux encouraged educators to read The Me Book and Let Me Hear Your Voice. These classics recommend the applied behavior analysis (ABA) approach and many parents have found them invaluable. Her rationale for recommending these books was not so much to educate school personnel, but to put them on a more equal footing with the parents who have read these books.

She did not seem to be "anti-ABA." She did not impress me as "pro child" either. Rather, she seemed most concerned with ensuring that school system personnel had the knowledge they needed defend their program, whatever it was. 

How to Avoid the "One Size Fits All" Mistake Ms. Genaux emphasized the need for school systems to avoid the "one size fits all" mistake. The school should not say "we only offer Lovaas," or "we only offer TEAACH." 

She said the emphasis should be on what works for the child. In the same breath, she said that just because Lovaas has already been proven effective (for example in a home based program), this does not mean the school must provide Lovaas if the school can offer another "appropriate" approach. 

Data Collection is Vital Ms. Genaux stressed the need for data collection. She seemed to believe that schools will be able to justify their programs with data. I see this working both ways. I agree that data collection is vital.

Melinda Maloney Baird, Esq. represents public school systems. She reported that prior to 1995, parents of autistic children won 75% of due process hearings. Since 1995, the reverse has been true. 

High Cost of a Due Process Hearing  Although this information might seem to encourage school systems to go to a hearing, the presenters emphasized the expense and extensive preparation involved in due process. She estimated defense costs of approximately $100,000. 

She noted that a Due Process Hearing can result in bad publicity for the school system and a breakdown in relationships with parents. 

Ms. Baird encouraged school systems to cooperate with parents in developing and implementing IEPs that will satisfy all parties. 

"Tips" for School Districts - Get Autism Experts Involved However, she did offer "tips" to avoid having to provide full-time Lovaas type programs. Ms. Baird suggested that Lovaas is a "packaged program" so is not individualized for each child. She advised that to prepare for a Due Process Hearing, school districts should hire autism experts who will observe the child, review school records, and meet with school personnel. She explained that school districts must do this because parents are doing it, and this is the only way to defeat the parents’ experts at a Due Process Hearing. 

Basic Components of an Appropriate Program: 
Discrete Trial Training, Extended School Year, Parent Training Although the program focused on school system personnel, it offered some positives for parents of children with autism. 

Ms. Baird said she could not imagine an appropriate program that did not include at least 10-15 hours of discreet trial training per week. She advised that it was hard to imagine any autistic child who would not qualify for extended school year services. They advised that an appropriate program must include parent training.

Unfortunately, many parents have had to fight for far less than these services. Some school districts still refuse to provide any ABA therapy. Some continue to fight extended school year services.

As an attorney, I heard nothing that alarmed me. 

I learned no new strategies about how school districts should prepare for Due Process Hearings against children with autism. 

Meet Wayne Steedman

Pete and Wayne first worked together after Wayne’s successful U. S. District Court decision in Gerstmyer v. Howard County Public Schools.

In Gerstmyer, Wayne was able to convince the Judge that a Montessori School was able to provide a free appropriate public education for a child with a learning disability. The Judge found that a Montessori School, which was not a traditional special education school, can be an appropriate placement for children with disabilities. Alex had been in the public school’s special ed program for just a few weeks. This was the first tuition reimbursement case that provided private school tuition for a non special education school after Pete’s U. S. Supreme Court decision in Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter. 

The school district appealed Gerstmyer to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Pete associated with Wayne as co-counsel. Prior to the filing of the briefs in the case, the school district withdrew their appeal.

Wayne D. Steedman is a founding partner in the law firm of Callegary & Steedman, P.A. His practice is devoted primarily to the representation of children with disabilities. He has represented his clients in administrative due process hearings and state and federal courts. 

Wayne graduated with honors in 1991 from the University of Maryland Law School. In addition to his law degree, Wayne has a Masters Degree in Social Work from the University of Maryland School of Social Work. Prior to practicing law, Wayne was in charge of the clinical treatment program at the Forbush School at Sheppard Pratt Hospital where he was employed for more than 20 years. 

Additionally he served for approximately ten years as a Due Process Hearing Officer in special education cases. 

Wayne Steedman, Esq.

About the Book To Order	About the Book To Order	About the Book To Order	About the DVD Video To Order
Copyright © 1998-2013, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved. Contact Us | Press l Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map