News

In May of this year, two hearings were convened in which the issue of autism classification played a central role.  Both cases were decided for the school district; both cases involved a student whose parents believed should be classified as autistic.  Taken together, the cases help crystallize the process by which districts should approach this dilemma. 

In Student v. George West ISD, a  student was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome by an outside evaluator contracted by the student’s parent.  Following a three-year evaluation conducted by the district, the student’s Admission, Review and Dismissal Committee decided that emotional disturbance rather than Asperger’s Disorder was a more appropriate diagnosis.  Though the parent disagreed, the hearing officer ultimately ruled for George West ISD, judging that the student had not been denied a Free  Appropriate Public Education and noting that the issue of classification is secondary to the quality of services offered the student. 

In Student v. Argyle ISD, Asperger’s Syndrome again turned up.  This time, a student with a documented emotional impairment was enrolled in a general education environment while simultaneously receiving psychological and therapeutic treatment. After a series of disciplinary incidents landed the student in a self-contained special education classroom, the parents desired to place their child in a private school and sought relief from the district to do so.  The Independent Educational Evaluation they subsequently requested and received determined that the child had Asperger’s.  Even so, the district refused to alter the student’s classification; rather, the district sought to incorporate a new Behavioral Intervention Program and adaptive behavior goals into the mainstream placement in the school.  As in George West, the Argyle district had conducted a full evaluation of the student, and the student’s ARD committee had not found sufficient evidence to classify the student with autism.

Paula Maddox Roalson has practiced school law for almost 18 years.  For the last fifteen, she’s been a special education attorney for Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos & Green. Ms. Roalson, currently serving in Walsh, Anderson’s Houston office, commented on these cases:  “How a child is identified for special education services is not nearly as important as whether the child’s program affords the child an appropriate education…the ARD committee must consider and properly identify the specific needs of the child at issue.”

Asked why schools perform comprehensive evaluations if the label of an individual student’s disability is irrelevant, Roalson emphasized that making diagnoses for special education eligibility is only one purpose of the evaluation: “Federal regulations instruct that [evaluations identify] all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.”

Districts are required by law to include parents in the decisions they make regarding a student’s special education eligibility, but, counsels Roalson, “Schools should be careful not to identify…students with a particular disability solely at parent request.  Such a practice could result in inappropriate and over-identification of children with particular disabilities.”

Roalson recommends that districts glean from these cases the necessity of performing solid evaluations that comply with federal and state law, carefully consider the results—including the results of outside testing—develop programming that is aligned to the individual student’s needs and that isn’t simply confined to a disability category, and that they allow parents the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the process.  “Any one individual,” she says, “cannot make an eligibility determination on his or her own.”

To read in greater depth about Student v. George West ISD and Student v. Argyle ISD, check out the October issue of Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest.