Side Effects May Include Dry-Mouth

Published on December 27, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

istock_000000835951xsmall

Am I the only one who yearns for the days before drug companies had ads on television?  Remember, back when, if your doctor thought you needed a medication, she would prescribe it?  Today, you are practically begged to self-diagnose, and only then ask your doctor “if it’s right for you.”  Serious psychiatric conditions are reduced to cartoon characters, which is only trumped by the odd discovery that, apparently, the world’s greatest aphrodisiac is a bathtub on a beach.

While I find most of these advertisements irritating, I do rather enjoy listening to the muted, quickly-read list of potential side-effects, especially when the medication being peddled is to treat something relatively minor…as in “we can reduce your toenail fungus by 80%, but it might cost you your liver.”

Okay, so what does any of this have to do with special education law and advocacy?

I’m getting there.  I have always faced the “we can’t afford it” argument from school districts when the parents have hired counsel and are trying to resolve their disputes.  But lately, it has reached a fevered pitch.  Virtually any discussion or meeting with a school these days, or with their counsel, includes the following phrase “with the economy as it is…”  When I hear administrators complain about the costs associated with reimbursing parents for disputed services, I can’t help but think that, just like those medication side-effects, the remedy ends up being so much more risky and costly than the original problem.  And why?

Because, ultimately, if the school system had just COMPLIED WITH THE LAW TO BEGIN WITH, they wouldn’t be in a position to have to reimburse parents!

istock_000009704710xsmall

In the many years that I have been practicing special education law in Connecticut, I can tell you that in the vast majority of cases, disputes could have been avoided years before the parents brought in a lawyer.  And the kicker is that the blueprint for doing so is right there in the IDEA.  When parents call me, it’s usually because there is either a crisis, or something close to it.  Yet, in probably 8 out of 10 cases, when I read the file, I can point to several points in the student’s education where basic compliance with the IDEA would most likely have resulted in earlier evaluation, and therefore intervention.  Instead of doing that, however, the administration has sat back and hoped the “problem” would just go away.  When it doesn’t (and it usually doesn’t), the situation has become urgent…and therefore much, much more expensive.

Astoundingly, some school systems have been willing to spend millions…that’s right MILLIONS of dollars in legal fees battling one family, rather than putting that money towards much needed special education services!

So, leaving aside that providing meaningful educational opportunities to children with special education needs is a matter of Civil Rights; leaving aside that it is mandated by IDEA; leaving aside that our priorities as a society surely must include providing necessary skills to our must vulnerable kids; even leaving aside the fact that doing so is the right thing to do…ultimately, compliance with the special education laws is the fiscally sound thing to do.

Next time you are at a cocktail party, and someone complains about the costs associated with special education services, ask them how costly they think a lifetime of government dependence will be.

istock_000001921014xsmall

3 Responses to Side Effects May Include Dry-Mouth

  1. Daunna Minnich
    December 28th, 2009 | 5:30 am

    Yes! I always say the goal of special education is to turn students with disabilities into taxpayers.

    IDEA 2004 phrases it a little differently — that is, the purpose of special ed is to prepare students with disabilities for further education, employment, and independent living. Further education is likely to result in more remunerative employment, which, of course, increases the amount of taxes paid. On the flip side, independent living is likely to decrease the amount of taxpayer support needed by individuals with severe disabilities. The rationale is simple, and so is the math: Pay now or pay forever.

  2. Sandy
    December 28th, 2009 | 10:18 pm

    I am one of those families where the district did pay legal fees in excess of a million dollars rather than do what was right in the first place. If you ever would like to hear the story, I’d be glad to share. I love your blog and I love your honesty! Thank you!

  3. Michelle Bidwell
    June 30th, 2010 | 2:11 pm

    Our district didn’t spend millions but did spend a ton of money to fight us–and then eventually settled. As you so accurately pointed out, in my twins cases there were two very specific incidences where, if the sped director had not been so pig-headed, had not already predetermined all she would provide, had not dug in her heels and drawn lines in the sand (and in these two specific incidences this sped director was NOT following either federal or state laws), had not been so WRONG but so power crazed she couldn’t see it, we would not have retained counsel and would not have filed for a DP hearing… Actually, if the sped director/district had made ANY attempt to do right by my girls, we also would not have finally fought to outplace them. So, in the end, the district fought for awhile then settled…not a very economical way to run a business if you ask me…