Please advise as to who is responsible to pay for an assessment of our sixth
grader's learning disabilities, not to mention provide supplemental
assistance if an expensive disability is present. (His spelling and
handwriting are simply way, way below what my spouse sees as a teacher in an
impoverished non-English-speaking neighborhood, his writing also is quite
poor (something that I suspect stems from these other problems, because he's
quite imaginative and his mechanical abilities and interests are strong).
He's afraid of reading just about anything at grade level. Many of this
year's test scores are at the 30th percentile or below. Yet several years
ago he was "strongly" qualified for [and placed in] the district's "GATE"
program. Arguably, something is severely off.) Candidates for who is
responsible for paying for assessment (and assistance) presumably are:

-- we (his parents);
-- the school district he attended for his entire elementary school period
and within whose boundaries I am employed (and therefore, by my non-expert
our state (CA) Section 48204 he presumably is deemed to have the same rights
as a resident), or
-- the school district in which we live.

(Please see below for more about 48204.)

Also, please comment: a counselor in our district cautioned us that if our
son is designated as "special ed" the district wouldn't educate him as of
high school. (The counselor didn't know that we have the employment type of
exception; my spouse had described us as "interdistrict".)


Finally, we'd also welcome any advice, legal or otherwise, re how best to
interact with the school district. (For example, how quickly should we move
to hiring an attorney if at all.) We've been model, volunteer parents,
etc., and usually taken a more cautious approach than we might if we were
physical residents. However, we have been advised in most quarters that
quality testing can make a difference and is the responsibility of school
districts but that districts, due to intense financial pressures they
understandly are under and due to high per pupil costs for special ed, can
tend to say there's no problem or to do so little testing as not to find a
problem.



For now I'll call that district the "Deemed" (residency) school district.
Deemed is the term that the Office of the Attorney General used in an
apparently published Opinion issued on a similar (though not
special-ed-specific) aspect of school district attendance rights. The
opinion is at http://caag.state.ca.us/opinions/published/01-316.pdf . The
law (or code?) is Section 48204, and in particular subdivisions (f)(1)
through (f)(7). Though the opinion was initiated because a legislator asked
some questions specific to overcrowding, with no mention at all of special
ed, the analysis seems to give a comprehensive affirmation of how a child
could be deemed a resident. Here is an excerpt from the analysis in the
opinion.

"Conditions (1) through (6) of subdivision (f) refer to the initial transfer
and admission of the pupil due to parental employment. Once admitted in
compliance with those conditions, subdivision (f)(7) requires that the child
be treated like any other child residing within the district, assuming the
parent maintains employment within the district." The analysis further
states "Once admitted ... a pupil of a parent who is employed within the
school district’s area may continue to attend the schools of the district
through the twelfth grade 'if the parent or guardian so chooses.' " (and if
the parent maintains employment within the district's boundaries). (The
analysis's quotations were from Section 48204.)


Our child was admitted to elementary school in the "Deemed" district due to
parental employment (specifically, my place of employment was within the
boundaries of the school district). Both his attendance and my employment
within the boundaries have continued, from Kindergarten to the present; that
is, he has completed all of elementary years under those circumstances.
Therefore, I have been thinking that he has the right to be treated "like
any other child residing within the district."


This deemed-resident-by-employment status contrasts with having
interdistrict admission from other reasons (in particular, under "childcare"
reasons). In fact, one or more other sites I found seem to define an
employment-established "residency" to be a creature completely separate from
"interdistrict" attendance, particularly in that interdistrict attendance
can be cancelled.

The Deemed district's parent handbook has a brief mention of
residency-through-employment but the office that handles interdistrict
attendance has sent us routine notices each year instructing us to to submit
new applications (one per child) for "Interdistrict" attendance. Therefore,
I'm unsure whether the District's administration is unaware of 48204 or
whether it perhaps takes a position that 48204 doesn't apply to the district
(or to us).


We are concerned that without necessarily trying to pass the buck, his
elementary school in part might have set him up for failure at the
post-elementary level by having passed him along with undeserved good
grades. In addition to the academic and career impacts, there is a strong
emotional component to this, in that (we suspect that) he fears humiliation
at not being able to keep up with peers in the tracked classes that his
"GATE" designation placed him in. Thank you!

Thank you Kathy! (Replies are in-line)
-- we (his parents); -- the school district he attended for his entire elementary school
period and within whose boundaries I am employed (and therefore, by my
non-expert our state (CA) Section 48204 he presumably is deemed to have the same
rights as a resident), or -- the school district in which we live. (Please see below for more about 48204.) I'm in Mass., not CA; but my understanding is that the "home" school
district (as in: where you live) bears the responsibility of testing and providing services for a SPED child. Our child was in private school when these
issues came up, and we were directed to the public school district in which we lived.

That makes sense to me too, but I'm guessing that 48204 might be unique to
Calif or at least would apply here. In any case, he's doing well socially
so we don't want to change districts (not to mention impact on the siblings
and family to go to two districts).

However, and here's the big gotcha - the wheels of the public school
system gring very slowly, even though the law specifies that the testing and treatment follow a strict schedule. Practically, however, you have to sue
to local school district to get proper services, and that takes time. If
your son is in sixth grade, you don't have that time.

That's the rock & hard place, as far as our affording that.

What we ended up doing is going the private route - we paid for all the testing and services ourselves. If you can possibly afford it, this might
be the way to go. Our child's privacy has been maintained, and she receives
the exact combination of services that her doctors have recommended in a
prompt manner. We've been told that we could sue for reimbursement of our money, but that would totally negate the benefit of her privacy. (Legal or not, SPED kids are identified at school, and their peers end up knowing all the gory details)

Another point we'd not considered; we'd only thought about the impact on
relationships with teachers & admin.s, not other students.

My suggestion is that you call California's State Department of Education, and speak with a special ed coordinator. Find out exactly what rights you have, and make a decision from there. Also contact your child's
pediatrician - our child's doctor helped us through the public school maze (which we eventually rejected), and gave us referrals to the proper professionals.

Thanks, great ideas, will do. Also, out of nowhere, we ended up getting an
appointment with a possibly helpful counselor who takes our insurance,
Pacificare Behavioral Health ("PBH"). We just had a first appt, and in a
couple of weeks are booked for testing for ADHD (or testing to rule it,
which is how my spouse articulated the test to me). We'd in part gotten the
impression that the better of the counselors might not participate in PBH,
plus we'd been informed by someone that PBH wouldn't pick up testing re
learning. Our first appointment itself was helpful in several ways. Please
note, I'm not certain that this PhD is tops; it was interesting that a
couple of other resources had said we'd probably have to spend $2.5k on
testing, while this counselor, upon my mentioning that, said that that much
testing shouldn't be necessary. He and PBH might have a vested interest in
understating the amount of testing, etc., but so far, so good.

If your state has a SPED parent advocacy group, contact them. These
people have been through the maze and are often extremely helpful in cutting
through the red tape.

I'm unclear on what SPED is; is that ADD (which I've read is the same as
ADHD)?
Also, please comment: a counselor in our district cautioned us that if
our son is designated as "special ed" the district wouldn't educate him as
of high school. (The counselor didn't know that we have the employment
type of exception; my spouse had described us as "interdistrict".) Most likely baloney. They might decline to give him special services, but it's doubtful they'd refuse to educate him in high school.

Thanks, again I suspect that we'll need Calif-specific input, but it seems
odd that even with a non-employment inter-district (and again, we have an
employment-based "residency", an exception to normal interdistrict status
and perhaps completely outside of it), it'd be cherry picking for a district
to gain the profits that come from non-special-ed interdistricts and then
send 'em back to their residency district if a cost arises.


Thank you again! I do hope for Calif-specific people too, though perhaps
our situation (of qualifying under 48204) is unique, particularly among
attorneys, though I know of at least two that have shown interest in having
their kids attend schools in districts other than their home ones.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 17:45:00 -0400, Howard J wrote
(in message <tpkklv89c7lkoktnb8ivhfk2c89o44sk1c@4ax.com>):


However, and here's the big gotcha - the wheels of the public school system grind very slowly, even though the law specifies that the testing and treatment follow a strict schedule. Practically, however, you have to sue to local school district to get proper services, and that takes time. If your son is in sixth grade, you don't have that time. That's the rock & hard place, as far as our affording that.

It's not that bad. The initial testing and treatment plan are the expensive
part. You might be able to get your health insurance to pay for it. Check
the contract. Our health insurance specifically excludes testing to diagnose
educational difficulties. However, as many learning disabilities have an
impact on normal living, your provider may be able to push it through on the
mental health component of your insurance.

Another point we'd not considered; we'd only thought about the impact on relationships with teachers & admin.s, not other students.

Due to privacy laws, the teachers and administration tends to keep quiet
about any specific SPED issues. The new HIPPA act apparently applies to
them as well, and you'll have to sign releases so your pediatrician, school
and any clinicians can collaborate.
If your state has a SPED parent advocacy group, contact them. These people have been through the maze and are often extremely helpful in cutting through the red tape. I'm unclear on what SPED is; is that ADD (which I've read is the same as ADHD)?

SPED means special education. ADD is the same thing as ADHD without the
hyperactivity component. It's far more common in girls than boys. They
require similar but not identical treatments.

Thank you again! I do hope for Calif-specific people too, though perhaps our situation (of qualifying under 48204) is unique, particularly among attorneys, though I know of at least two that have shown interest in having their kids attend schools in districts other than their home ones.

Please let me know where you go with that. Here in MA, you really have to go
with the home district, whether it's considered "cherry picking" or not.
Services are tied to residency. I'd be quite interested in finding out if
your employer-based school assignment negates the residency requirement.

Kathy

>Also, please comment: a counselor in our district cautioned us that if ourson is designated as "special ed" the district wouldn't educate him as ofhigh school. (The counselor didn't know that we have the employment type ofexception; my spouse had described us as "interdistrict".)

If things go well, he will be performing up to his grade level by 9th grade, in
which case he would no longer be "special ed." I am not sure if it would be so
terrible for him to end up going to high school in the community where you live
instead of the one where you work. Certainly it isn't going to be so terrible
that you should risk passing up the chance to get the help your son needs now.

One possibility, by the way, might be to move to the town/ district where you
work, or to some other community which has better schools than the ones where
you live. The way you told your story, you assumed that your employment and
residence are unchangeable--- and they are not. You COULD move to another
community if you wanted to; you COULD find another job or quit your current one
(and you MIGHT even lose your job involuntarily.) You may not always be living
in School District A and working for School District B.



*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****

Kathy,
The initial testing and treatment plan are the expensive part.

Moving away from relative terms<g>, one estimate was in the $2500 range, and
the person who would be coordinating that testing implied that it could be
higher. If you're open to it, please comment as to whether that's in the
ballpark.

You might be able to get your health insurance to pay for it. Check the contract.

Good idea, we hadn't done that.

Due to privacy laws, the teachers and administration tends to keep quiet about any specific SPED issues. The new HIPPA act apparently applies to them as well, and you'll have to sign releases so your pediatrician,
school and any clinicians can collaborate.

1) We have a schoolteacher in the family. The schools in this state seem
to be focussing primarily on budget and testing issues. I think that a
school counselor, because she/he deals with such issues frequently, would
receive sufficient training and be focussed enough to do a good job with
privacy. As to individual teachers, I'm afraid that it falls mostly to the
pre-existing strengths and values of that individual--a little training will
reinforce and focus those who already had the right idea, but I suspect that
in many cases it won't have a significant effect on others. And my concern
is more with the attitude that the teachers and administration will have
toward our child and toward us (the latter potentially being important in
the event of unrelated requests or issues that could arise in the future),
and thus I wasn't focussed so much on gossip as on the primary people's
relationships to our child and us.

SPED means special education. ADD is the same thing as ADHD without the hyperactivity component. It's far more common in girls than boys. They require similar but not identical treatments.

Thanks.
Thank you again! I do hope for Calif-specific people too, though
perhaps our situation (of qualifying under 48204) is unique, particularly among attorneys, though I know of at least two that have shown interest in
having their kids attend schools in districts other than their home ones. Please let me know where you go with that. Here in MA, you really have to
go with the home district, whether it's considered "cherry picking" or not. Services are tied to residency. I'd be quite interested in finding out if your employer-based school assignment negates the residency requirement.


OK, will do. My newsreader, Outlook Express, seems to delete posts after a
while so perhaps I'd have to start a new thread. (I don't want to have it
keep copies of every post I've read, but I think I'd like it to save threads
that I've participated in.) Thanks again!

Horrigan,

Thanks, comments inline.
Also, please comment: a counselor in our district cautioned us that if
ourson is designated as "special ed" the district wouldn't educate him as ofhigh school. (The counselor didn't know that we have the employment type
ofexception; my spouse had described us as "interdistrict".) If things go well, he will be performing up to his grade level by 9th
grade, in which case he would no longer be "special ed."

Great point!

I am not sure if it would be so terrible for him to end up going to high school in the community where you
live instead of the one where you work.

Well, if he's in the non-special-ed track, we are sure<g>. But explaining
that would get us into a significant thread drift.

Certainly it isn't going to be so terrible that you should risk passing up the chance to get the help your son needs
now.

I agree; if he does need that much help, it'd be far better for him to get
it than not to.

One possibility, by the way, might be to move to the town/ district where
you work, or to some other community which has better schools than the ones
where you live.

Yes, but there are strong benefits to continuity as to friendships and
place, and regarding these districts, it's unlikely we'd be moving.

The way you told your story, you assumed that your employment and residence are unchangeable--- and they are not. You COULD move to another community if you wanted to; you COULD find another job or quit your
current one (and you MIGHT even lose your job involuntarily.)

At some level, yes, but these (in our opinion) are unlikely / impractical so
we're focussed elsewhere.

You may not always be living in School District A and working for School District B.

Just to clarify for others who might be interested in Section 48204, the
employment has to be within the boundaries of School District B, but the
employment can be with any employer, not necessarily the school district
itself.

Thanks again!