This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
In the spectrum of autism, an individual’s symptoms may vary from mild to severe, independence can be from high functionality to severe impairment, and intelligence level may range from gifted to severe mental retardation. There is no cure for autism, but early detection and treatment of symptoms improve a person’s education and functional- ity levels.


GENERAL OUTLINE OF IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal spend- ing program. Schools receive funds to provide students with disabilities access to an equalized education, comparable to students without disabilities. Students and their par- ents may recover under the act by showing that a school district failed to provide the child with an ap- propriate education or bear the costs thereof.


The act ensures that all children with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE). A FAPE utilizes special education and related services de- signed to meet the students’ unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and indepen- dent living. A FAPE is a “basic floor of opportunity.” Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200 (1982).


Special education and related services must be formulat- ed for each disabled student in an individualized educa- tion plan (IEP). An IEP is an annual written agreement between the parent or guardian and a team of the child’s educators, administrators, specialists, and psychologists. The plan outlines the student’s progress, measurable yearly goals, and the means for achieving those goals in light of the disability’s effect on the child’s education. The IEP spe- cifically lists the extent of the child’s segregation, accom- modation, special education, and related services.


An IEP need only be reasonably calculated to confer “some educational benefit” upon the child. Rowley at 200. A child’s educational progress is measured by slight advance- ment, and the school has no legal obligation to maximize


the learning potential of students with disabilities.


Parents can obtain private services if a school is unable to offer the accommodations necessary for the student with the disability to achieve a sufficient education. Privately funded services will be reimbursed by the state so long as they are essential to attaining some educational benefit and are not in excess of what the act requires de minimis to achieve a FAPE.


A school district will prevail if it is found that the IEP was designed and im- plemented to main- stream a student with autism and to achieve educational potential by con- sidering the child’s special needs.


MAINSTREAMING To be an appropriate edu- cation, an IEP must be imple- mented in the least restrictive envi-


ronment (LRE). This means that a child with


a disability will be educated in mainstream classrooms and participate in recess and extracurricular activities with other students to the maximum extent appropriate. The environment must be age appropriate and the curriculum may be modified to ensure that students with disabilities are educated “to the greatest extent possible . . . together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled.” Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P. by & Through Bess P., 62 F.3d 520, 535 (3d Cir. 1995). Only when the nature or sever- ity of autism prohibits a FAPE from being achieved will a student be placed into a more segregated environment. Segregation may include special classes, separate schooling, or other removal.


Integrating a student with a disability is not required when inappropriate. The court will consider such factors as whether the child is receiving academic benefits from inclusion in the regular class, the educational progress re- quires significant instruction outside the classroom, and the child requires separate schooling in several academic or recreational areas. Ultimately, when autism is so severe that the student cannot function in a regular classroom with-


THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEY 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68