Wrights
law


The Special Ed Advocate Newsletter
July 13, 1998

 Home  >  Advocacy Libraries  >  Newsletter Archives  >  1998  >  July 13

Home  
Issue - 8

ISSN: 1538-3202


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Programs

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Jan 16 - Shreveport, LA

Jan 24 - Corpus Christi, TX

Jan 24 - Pensacola, FL

Jan 31 - Champaign, IL

Feb 19 - Lincroft, NJ

Feb 24 - Knoxville, TN

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Jason at Ft. Benning
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
ISEA
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 
The Special Ed Advocate is a free online newsletter about special education legal issues, cases, tactics and strategy, educational methods that work, and Internet links.

We publish this newsletter occasionally, when time permits. Back issues of The Special Ed Advocate are archived at our web site -

http://www.wrightslaw.com

As a subscriber to The Special Ed Advocate, you will receive announcements and "alerts" about new cases and other events. Contact, copyright, and subscription information can be found at the end of this newsletter.


(1) IDEA Regs Delayed Again

(2) Update on the Asbury ABA/Lovaas Case: Michael and Kathryn Asbury File Suit Against the Missouri Department of Education

(3) Plans for the Second Annual COPAA Conference

(4) More about our "Slideshow."

(5) Subscription information


(1) IDEA Regs Delayed Again - U. S. Department of Education Issues New Status Report

Judith Heumann says that "States are bound by the statute (IDEA 97) and existing regulations that are not inconsistent with IDEA 97 . . . States [are] expected to conduct monitoring of local School Districts based on the statute and existing regulations that are not inconsistent with IDEA 97 pending publication of the final regulations . . ."

To read the new "status report"



(2) $133,000.00 SETTLEMENT UPDATE on the Asbury ABA-Lovaas Case

BACKGROUND:

Daniel Asbury is a six-year-old child with autism. The school district placed Daniel into one of their class-based preschool programs. After two years, objective testing showed that Daniel regressed - he had actually lost skills.

After Daniel regressed in the district's preschool program, his parents pulled him out and began providing ABA therapy. In the ABA/Lovaas therapy program, Daniel receives 40 hours of intensive 1:1 therapy a week. Just before the due process hearing, the case was settled for $133,000, including damages and attorneys fees.

There is no objective evidence that the public school’s typical class-based preschool programs work for children with autism. Yet, school districts around the country continue to place young autistic children into these ineffective programs. States have a responsibility to ensure that school districts use programs that are research based and effective. Thus, the Asbury’s now have a case pending against the state.

UPDATE:

On June 12, Michael and Kathryn Asbury filed suit in Federal Court against the Missouri department of education. To learn why, read the press release from Mary Jane White and Ken Chackes, attorneys for the parents.

To read the Settlement Agreement between Michael and Kathryn Asbury and the St. Louis [MO] School District.


(3) The Second Annual COPAA Conference will be held in San Diego on January 29-31, 1999. BE THERE!

To learn more about plans for the Second Annual COPAA Conference, go to the Wrightslaw site.



(4) OUR NEW SLIDESHOW

Recently, we posted a PowerPoint slideshow that is taken from slides that we use during our presentations. We use slides to help parents, advocates, and attorneys develop an understanding of tests and measurements. It becomes a visual demonstration and evidence of educational progress or lack of progress. Graphs are another example of how to use tactics and strategy at IEP meetings and in due process hearings to get the services that the children need.

At the beginning of the show, you'll see the test scores we used to make the graphs as both standard scores and percentile ranks. We took the child's standard scores, made a graph of that data. Next, we converted the standard scores to percentile ranks and made graphs of the data. Then we took that graph and simply duplicated it several times. In order to isolate the reading, we then deleted all data but the reading percentile ranks. For the next graph, example-writing, we deleted all data except the writing percentile ranks. In other words, we started with a master graph and then duplicated it, and deleted all data except for one educational skill area. These graphs show that the child was not making much progress. The graphs became evidence in one of our cases. Enjoy!

To Subscribe

Home


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright © 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map