Zachery Deal case- ABA

[Guest guest]

I good friend sent this to me. Sorry so long, but a great read and

extremely empowering for all of those out there who are having trouble with

their school district. NEVER GIVE UP! Liz.

Deal v. Hamilton County Department of Education, No. 99-59 (Tenn, Dept. of

Education): In defending its less expensive and more orthodox choice of

services for Zachary, the HCDE cites to the oft quoted Doe v. Bd. of Educ.

Of Tullahoma City Schools where the Sixth Circuit held that schools have

complied with the IDEA's requirements if they offer the educational

equivalent of a serviceable Chevrolet to a handicapped student rather than a

Cadillac. 9 F. 3d 455, 459 (6th Cir. 1993). The IDEA may not mandate a

Cadillac for Zachary Deal. It does, however, require the HCDE to make sure

whichever vehicle they propose, is fully gassed and capable of arriving at

an appropriate destination. . . . The HCDE did not offer to provide Zachary

Deal with a proven or even describable methodology for educating autistic

children because they had no such methodology to offer. In pre-hearing

discovery and in the first days of the hearing, the HCDE termed their

methodology the " eclectic " methodology or approach. During the course of

the hearing, however, the HCDE witnesses distanced themselves from this

label when it became clear that it was indefinable and virtually meaningless

as a descriptor for an organized methodology. . . . This steadfast

resistance to one-on-one ABA in the face of the mounting favorable evidence

for Lovaas style ABA provided further evidence that the HCDE's insistence on

rejecting Lovaas style ABA for Zachary is based primarily on its perceived

cost. The record, as developed by both the parents' and the school system's

witnesses, showed the most widespread methodology, TEACCH, is gradually

losing ground in the special education community [to] more effective

methodologies, such as Dr. Schwartz's program, which employ one-on-one ABA

as a chief component. There was no evidence whatsoever produced to indicate

that intensive one-on-one discrete trial training was somehow less effective

than more orthodox methodologies. The HCDE also failed to produce

convincing evidence that their methodology for young children with autism

was equal to or better than a program based primarily on an intensive ABA

intervention. The preponderance of the evidence weighed heavily in favor of

Lovaas style ABA as the appropriate methodology for educating Zachary Deal.

The Deals learned of the Lovaas style ABA program on their own. The court

finds this significant because, given its demonstrated effectiveness and the

widespread knowledge within the HCDE of its spreading use with autistic

children, it is difficult to explain how a school system, which claims to

have been open to any methodology which would address Zachary's unique

needs, would dismiss this approach outright without even discussing its

perceived advantages and disadvantages with the Deals. Given the state of

knowledge about methodologies for educating autistic children, the HCDE

school system representatives should have at least informed the parents

about the Lovaas style of ABA and explained why they would recommend against

it. . . . There is no case law which stands for the proposition that the

term " appropriate " as it pertains to FAPE sanctions a program which would

actually retard a special needs child's education or development. The court

finds that an appropriate educational methodology for Zachary Deal must

include an intensive Lovaas style ABA component.