http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E348351,00.html
District, couple spar over needs
of autistic twins
By Karen Rouse
Denver Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 21, 2002 - DOUGLAS COUNTY - A Parker couple
that successfully fought the school district's attempt to place their autistic
twins in kindergarten is now facing a challenge from the district.
The Douglas County School District
is appealing the decision of an independent hearing officer who found the
district's decision to promote the boys based on age violated their rights to a
"free, appropriate public education."
An administrative law
judge is scheduled to hear arguments on April 2, according to Jack Robinson,
attorney for Patty and Raymond Wrape. The district wants the judge to reverse
the decision.
The Wrapes asked the
district a year ago to keep their boys in Cherokee Trail Elementary School's
preschool program for the 2001-02 school year. The boys attended Child Find,
which integrates special education and non-special-education students for the
2000-01 year.
The Wrapes argued that the
boys were not prepared for kindergarten.
"They just hadn't met
some goals that are key to kindergarten success, like listening, following
directions, interacting to peers," Patty Wrape said.
The larger issue was
keeping the boys, who were born prematurely, with their age group, she said.
The twins were due Oct. 16, 1996, but born July 24, 1996.
Policy based on age
When teachers and staff
voted last year to move the boys to kindergarten, the Wrapes appealed to the
state Department of Education for a due process hearing.
Raymond Lee Payne Jr., the
hearing officer, wrote in his decision that the district's decision to put the
boys in kindergarten was based on a board policy of advancing children to
kindergarten once they turn 5.
Had the twins been carried
full term, they would have been 4 on Sept. 15.
The district failed to
consider other factors, such as research articles the Wrapes provided to show
the slower maturation of premature children, he wrote.
"The extreme
premature birth circumstances involving the twins is exceptional and should
have been considered," the Nov. 6 decision said. The district team
violated the boys' rights "by considering only the school district's age policy."
Other factors
considered
The district, however,
said age is just one factor. The staff also considers emotional and behavioral
abilities, said Bruce Caughey, school spokesman.
"They really try to
look at the individual needs of the child, and there is a real effort to keep
children with age-appropriate peers," Caughey said. "You wouldn't
want to have a 15-year-old in third grade."
In the last five years,
the district has allowed three children who were "significantly medically
impacted" to remain in preschool after age 5, Caughey said.
In the meantime, the boys
have remained in preschool this year under a "stay-put" provision
that keeps them where they are until the matter is resolved, Robinson said.
They likely will complete
their two years of preschool, as their parents wished, by the time a decision
on the appeal is rendered, he said. The district and the Wrapes both support
sending them to kindergarten next year.
Caughey declined to
discuss the specifics of the case, but said it could be precedent-setting.
If the Wrapes win, the
district may have to reimburse the couple for legal fees, about $20,000, Patty
Wrape said. Caughey could not say how much the district has spent on the case.
Charles Masner, a senior
consultant for the state's special education services, said he knows of no
other case in which a parent has fought to keep a special-education child in
preschool.
Lorrie Harkness, state
director of special education for the Department of Education, said that while
the preference is to keep special-education children with their peers, the
"bottom line" is that the decision must be based on the individual
education plan of each child.
All contents Copyright 2002 The
Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial
purpose.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.