Source: https://www.wrightslaw.com/nltr/06/nl.0531.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:15:48+00:00

Document:
1. Parents Prevail in ABA Autism Case!
On May 26, 2006, U. S. District Court Judge Robert Payne issued an extensive pro-child decision in Henrico County School Board v. R. T., a tuition reimbursement case on behalf of a child with autism. The judge found that the school system knowingly and repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate educational program for a young child with autism.
"The Court finds that the School Board’s conduct in this matter reflects the inertia to which Congress was referring when it wrote in the IDEA that 'the implementation of this chapter has been impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities.'" 20 U. S. C. § 1400(c)(4). Henrico County School Board v. R. T.
Download the decision in Henrico County School Board v. R. T.
R. T. is a child with autism. In the Fall of 2002, his parents removed him from the public school special education program and placed him into the Faison School.
“At the Faison School, RT flourished” and made “rapid and significant progress.” Within a few months, RT went from being a nonverbal child to speaking at least 100 words." The parents sued for tuition reimbursement.
The decision in Henrico County School Board v. R. T. is very comprehensive and includes many excellent points that can be used in other types of cases on behalf of children with other disabilities.
Henrico County School Board v. R. T. is on the level of Zachary Deal v. Hamilton County TN Board of Ed (6th Cir. 2004) and Bd. of Ed of Kanawha WV v. Michael M. in providing good quotes and logic to use in briefs and judicial decisions.
In Analysis of Henrico County School Board v. R.T. by Pete Wright, you will learn about the Burden of Proof and Burden of Persuasion after the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Schaffer v. Weast and the comprehensive analysis of ABA and TEACCH.
Read Analysis of Henrico County School Board v. R.T. by Pete Wright.
We just learned that the IDEA 2004 regulations have left the Department of Education and are being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Pursuant to deadlines set by the rules, the final regulations are likely to be published in August 2006. However, exceptions can be invoked that may lead to further delays.
We will continue to post updates in The Special Ed Advocate newsletter and on Wrightslaw.
IDEA 2004 at Wrightslaw .
In 1999, the California Legislature passed legislation that requires students to pass exit exams in English and math before graduating from high school. The Class of 2006 is the first class to be affected by this requirement.
Subsequently, a group of five students sued the state, claiming the exit exam requirement discriminates against low-income and minority students in Valenzuela v. O'Connell.
Last week, the California Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and reinstated the exit exam requirement - at least temporarily. This ruling will affect 47,000 seniors who have not passed the exit exam. The court will accept briefs and hear oral arguments on the exit exam later this summer.
On May 30, the State School Superintendent described options that may be available for these students.
To learn more about the confusing exit exam situation in California - a situation that seems to change every week, read California Supreme Court Reinstates Exit Exam.
As school districts and states come under increased pressure to improve educational results, high stakes testing has become a hot issue.
The Wrightslaw High Stakes Testing page includes articles, cases, free publications, and updates on high stakes testing litigation that will help help you advocate more effectively for your child.
June 14: Rehoboth Beach, DE - Special Ed Law & Advocacy Training with Pete and Pam Wright at the Boardwalk Plaza Hotel; sponsored by The Arc of Delaware. SOLD OUT!

References: v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.