NLDline

Subj: THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE: July 13, 1998, Vol. 1, No. 8
Date: 7/13/98 12:04:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: pwright@inna.net (Pete+Pam Wright)
Sender: owner-special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
Reply-to: pwright@wrightslaw.com
To: special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com

==============================
The Special Ed Advocate

The Online Newsletter About
Special Education and the Law

July 13, 1998 Vol. 1, No. 8

Visit us today at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com

=================================

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

===================================
IN THIS ISSUE: July 13, 1998

(1.) IDEA Regs Delayed Again

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

(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," go to -

http://www.wrightslaw.com/news_heumann_lateregs_980701.html

==============================
(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.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/news_asbury_lovaas_pressrelease_980713.html

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

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law_asbury_agreement_980713.html

===============
(3) Mark Your Calendars!! The Second Annual COPAA Conference
will be held in San Diego on January 29-31, 1999.

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

http://www.wrightslaw.com/news_COPAA_2dConf_980703.htm

==============

(4) 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 see the slideshow, go to:

http://www.wrightslaw.com/slideindex.htm

==============

(5) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

To subscribe to our newsletter, send an email to -

majordomo@wrightslaw.com

In the body of the message, insert the following words
exactly, with hyphens, all lowercase -

subscribe special-ed-advocate

You will receive an automatic, computerized confirmation
that your request "has been forwarded to the owner of the
'special-ed-advocate' list for approval, and that it is a
closed list."

Within a couple of days, you will receive a message
confirming that you are a subscriber. DO NOT send your
subscription request to

pwright@wrightslaw.com.

To unsubscribe, follow the same procedure. Send an email to
majordomo@wrightslaw.com that says

unsubscribe special-ed-advocate

========================================

Copyright 1998 Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright.
All rights reserved.

The resources at this site are copyrighted by the authors
and/or publisher. They may be used for non-commercial
purposes only. They may not be redistributed for commercial
purposes without the express written consent of Peter W. D.
Wright and Pamela Darr Wright.

Appropriate credit should be given to these resources if
they are reproduced in any form.

Pete and Pam Wright,
P. O. Box 1008,
Deltaville, Virginia 23043.
Email: pwright@wrightslaw.com
http://www.wrightslaw.com/