Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm...I wonder if there's any case for bringing a material misrepresentation/detrimental reliance suit against DCPS for telling you you'd get X services, than pulling the rug after you'd already materially changed positions (committed to paying for private school) in reliance on that representation?
Or can you not bring that kind of tort claim against a government?

My personal opinion is that this would be very expensive and time consuming and the parents dealing with this need to focus that time and money on now securing private therapies to replace what has now been taken. Maybe it's possible in theory but it's one more thing to deal with that people in a panic scramble can't deal with.

If you haven't already call Advocates for Justice in Education - (AJE).

Hmmmm...I wonder if there's any case for bringing a material misrepresentation/detrimental reliance suit against DCPS for telling you you'd get X services, than pulling the rug after you'd already materially changed positions (committed to paying for private school) in reliance on that representation?
Or can you not bring that kind of tort claim against a government?

I imagine that contacting the media would bring a shit storm of embarrassment. I think it's worth a shot!

Hi OP and any others in similar situation,
I'm late to the party here as I was on vacation when we received our similar letter, plus it took me a few days to realize it actually meant what it meant (you are cutting all my preK 4 daughter's services - 8 hours a month of direct therapy which to me is a meaningful amount - after we just agreed to this a month ago)? My main issue is with the timing of how this is all communicated. I have already signed a contract with the private pre-school - I might have made a different decision if DCPS had been upfront about not providing the services this year. I know it won't make a lick of difference but I will feel better if I complain to someone - have you contacted anyone in the DC government, council, media etc. as was suggested by many? Or pursued legal options? I would love to add our voice to whatever chorus has already been started (if any).
Thank you,
Amanda

Anonymous wrote:They're not winning anymore. DC is putting up a much more vigorous defense and claiming it can provide FAPE.

Ten years ago DC lost so many cases simply on procedural grounds. They didn't get evaluations done in the required timeframes. Didn't invite parents to IEP meetings and so forth.

They have cleaned up that stuff and thus fewer 'easy' wins.

They're not winning anymore. DC is putting up a much more vigorous defense and claiming it can provide FAPE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it would make sense to me that public school districts provide services to public school students. Why should tax payers fund services for students not in public school? Imagine how much more resources public school students could have if funds were not funneled into providing services to those NOT in public school!

If the only way for parents to get services for their child is to enroll them in public school, the public schools are going to get a larger share of kids with SN. Making public schools responsible for some services, but not the entire education of kids with SN is a compromise that lowers the overall cost for the public school system.

Parents who can afford private school will not move thier children to public for the services. They will either suck it up and pay privately for them or move to a jurisdiction where they have better options.

Or sue the District for a non-public placement. It worked for us, and many others. It's a lot cheaper to pay Michael Eig's fee than several years of private school! Providing FAPE and services is DC's obligation. If they can't or won't do it willingly, they can be forced to do so by the court.

Parents aren't winning these cases much anymore, as you know. Your litigation was several years ago, correct?

I didn't know that. Are they not winning, or not bringing the suits in the first place? I can't say I'm impressed by what I'm hearing about DCPS's services, so if they (DCPS) are losing less often perhaps some of the more egregious problems have been addressed. It was my understanding that many of the students who left private placements did so because they essentially aged out of the system, not that anyone ever came back to DCPS. Some of them, after all, were out of state I believe (and I don't mean MD or VA, I mean PA or further).

In answer to your question though, yes it was a few years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it would make sense to me that public school districts provide services to public school students. Why should tax payers fund services for students not in public school? Imagine how much more resources public school students could have if funds were not funneled into providing services to those NOT in public school!

If the only way for parents to get services for their child is to enroll them in public school, the public schools are going to get a larger share of kids with SN. Making public schools responsible for some services, but not the entire education of kids with SN is a compromise that lowers the overall cost for the public school system.

Parents who can afford private school will not move thier children to public for the services. They will either suck it up and pay privately for them or move to a jurisdiction where they have better options.

Or sue the District for a non-public placement. It worked for us, and many others. It's a lot cheaper to pay Michael Eig's fee than several years of private school! Providing FAPE and services is DC's obligation. If they can't or won't do it willingly, they can be forced to do so by the court.

Parents aren't winning these cases much anymore, as you know. Your litigation was several years ago, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it would make sense to me that public school districts provide services to public school students. Why should tax payers fund services for students not in public school? Imagine how much more resources public school students could have if funds were not funneled into providing services to those NOT in public school!

If the only way for parents to get services for their child is to enroll them in public school, the public schools are going to get a larger share of kids with SN. Making public schools responsible for some services, but not the entire education of kids with SN is a compromise that lowers the overall cost for the public school system.

Parents who can afford private school will not move thier children to public for the services. They will either suck it up and pay privately for them or move to a jurisdiction where they have better options.

Or sue the District for a non-public placement. It worked for us, and many others. It's a lot cheaper to pay Michael Eig's fee than several years of private school! Providing FAPE and services is DC's obligation. If they can't or won't do it willingly, they can be forced to do so by the court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Coaching" is also coming to Early Intervention programs, too. My daughter who is a PT was required to go to a 2 day workshop on the concept. She works in a private center based with classrooms and instead of giving a child with an IEP in preschool the PT, OT or Speech directly you are noe supposed to go into the classroom and " coach" with no direct hands on. It is crazy when many staff are not that we'll educated in general at all. The other idea is that a therapist could be a generalist and cover beyond one's discipline. She is at a DC site, but you may want to check EI programs in VA and MD.

DD did say that working as a private therapist in a person's home in EI that certainly one does use a combo of hands on and coaching a parent or caretaker I. What to do. However in a school setting with untrained - not eve special Ed teachers Itbis watering down services.

This is the norm in many other states EI program. It's cheaper. Probably much less effective too.

Coaching (when done properly) is much more effective than providing hands-on, direct therapy services (which is not what EI is supposed to be) as it allows for better carryover and more opportunities to practice skills. M'Lisa Shelden and Dathan Rush are the coaching gurus of early intervention. Here's one article by them about coaching.

http://www.coachinginearlychildhood.org/cmisperceptions.php

Robin McWilliam is another good researcher to read up on.

Totally depends on the issue. For my kid's it was useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Coaching" is also coming to Early Intervention programs, too. My daughter who is a PT was required to go to a 2 day workshop on the concept. She works in a private center based with classrooms and instead of giving a child with an IEP in preschool the PT, OT or Speech directly you are noe supposed to go into the classroom and " coach" with no direct hands on. It is crazy when many staff are not that we'll educated in general at all. The other idea is that a therapist could be a generalist and cover beyond one's discipline. She is at a DC site, but you may want to check EI programs in VA and MD.

DD did say that working as a private therapist in a person's home in EI that certainly one does use a combo of hands on and coaching a parent or caretaker I. What to do. However in a school setting with untrained - not eve special Ed teachers Itbis watering down services.

This is the norm in many other states EI program. It's cheaper. Probably much less effective too.

Coaching (when done properly) is much more effective than providing hands-on, direct therapy services (which is not what EI is supposed to be) as it allows for better carryover and more opportunities to practice skills. M'Lisa Shelden and Dathan Rush are the coaching gurus of early intervention. Here's one article by them about coaching.

http://www.coachinginearlychildhood.org/cmisperceptions.php

Robin McWilliam is another good researcher to read up on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it would make sense to me that public school districts provide services to public school students. Why should tax payers fund services for students not in public school? Imagine how much more resources public school students could have if funds were not funneled into providing services to those NOT in public school!

If the only way for parents to get services for their child is to enroll them in public school, the public schools are going to get a larger share of kids with SN. Making public schools responsible for some services, but not the entire education of kids with SN is a compromise that lowers the overall cost for the public school system.

Parents who can afford private school will not move thier children to public for the services. They will either suck it up and pay privately for them or move to a jurisdiction where they have better options.

Agree with this. And that's probably what DCPS is banking on.

Also agree with the scenario. My child received services but I still paid for private too. They gave us one day a week and I had to pay for the other 3 days of the week. They also would have put her into an ESL class if she had gone to a DCPS because my DH is Latino...never mind that she doesn't speak Spanish. They felt this would have been better than additional speech therapy. (...and this is why my children attend a private school!)

WTF? They told you this as part of the Early Stages/IEP process?

Yes!

I've heard that from others. My understanding is they can try but cannot force you to. They do it for the extra funding. You can refuse.

Yep - schools get add'l funding for each ELL student (a lump sum). They also get more for a student with special neneds, but it's based on the number of hours of services and is less than ELL.

Funding for special ed is definitely more than ELL.

Best practices is to have preschoolers who are eligible for ELL services, which in preschool almost never means "ELL classes" and instead means consultation between the ELL teacher and the classroom teacher and other whole class interventions, keep their services until it's clear that they're on their way to becoming readers in Kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the issue is. I think it's not an absurd idea to use funds for children and families who truly cannot afford those services, much less private schools.
I cannot imagine having a child use city funds when I'm spending thousands of dollars a year on a school when I can get my child into a public school instead.

--mother of a special needs child who attends public school

So you think that public education should be means tested? I am not sure I understand why you think that the money allocated by the Feds for OP's child should be redistributed to poor children, unless you also think the much larger amount allocated to yours should be too.

It should be for students that ATTEND public schools... full stop

Because . . . ?

(Full stop is not an argument).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the issue is. I think it's not an absurd idea to use funds for children and families who truly cannot afford those services, much less private schools.
I cannot imagine having a child use city funds when I'm spending thousands of dollars a year on a school when I can get my child into a public school instead.

--mother of a special needs child who attends public school

So you think that public education should be means tested? I am not sure I understand why you think that the money allocated by the Feds for OP's child should be redistributed to poor children, unless you also think the much larger amount allocated to yours should be too.

It should be for students that ATTEND public schools... full stop