The fundamental challenge in finding an appropriate
placement for the student with higher-functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome
is meeting the child’s emotional or behavioral needs yet not short-changing him
or her academically. Notwithstanding the
various challenges the student may have related to the disability, the student
may likely be extremely bright. Many day
therapeutic day programs are well-equipped to help the student develop social
skills and learn to maintain a sense of equilibrium, but many programs lack
academic rigor for the student.
A recent due process case from Massachusetts recognized this placement tension for a student with Asperger’s whose
parents had unilaterally placed him in an out-of-state private residential
program that they believed better met his needs. The hearing officer, in agreeing with the
parents, stated that although the school district was not required to provide a
program that would maximize the student’s potential to ensure FAPE, the school
still needed to consider the student’s potential in order to determine whether
or not he was receiving “meaningful benefit” from the IEP. To be meaningful, the student must be able to
progress, even when his potential is high. In this particular case, the student
had challenges with reading fluency and poor social skills. Additionally, he could be argumentative and
withdraw socially. Yet the student was
very talented mathematically and desired to attend college where he would study
math. The hearing officer stated that the placement proposed by the school
failed to provide FAPE. Although the
program specialized in students with Asperger’s and could help with the social
skills and learning issues, its three teachers, none of whom had content
certification, could challenge the student academically. The program, which was unable to offer
students any science labs, had also not sent any students on to college. This relatively flexible view of the FAPE requirement is new twist and one that is not applied in all cases, making this case very interesting to see if it gets applied in other cases.
In comparison, the private residential placement selected by
the parents offered a high-level academic track, including an honors math
program. In their senior year, students’
living situations replicated college dormitories in an effort to prepare them
further for college and communal living.
In agreeing with the parents that the therapeutic day placement proposed
by their district was inadequate, the hearing officer stated that for the
student to achieve his transition goals of attending college and living
independently, he needed to improve not only his social skills, but also to
develop his academic talents.
Incidentally, by the time this due process case was heard, the student
had begun his freshman year in college.
So what does this ruling mean for other students with
Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism whose families are seeking appropriate
placements? Although the Massachusetts
due process case is not legally binding on other hearing officers in other
states, it can be very persuasive to hearing officers who are pondering
placement decisions. School
districts do not want to incur the high expense of sending off their
students to private residential placements, but they need to meet the needs of the student.
Conversely, parents might prefer to have their children remain at home
and be educated locally. Perhaps this Massachusetts
case will prod school districts and therapeutic day schools to develop more well-rounded programs that will address not only the behavioral and social components of the
disability, but also to challenge and stretch these students academically where
their talents can shine and they can fulfill their transition plans. There are unmet opportunities that this case highlights.