EDLAW Briefing Paper
©2001, EDLAW, Inc.
February 2001                     
Who Chooses Educational "Methodology"?

"We hear repeatedly that parents are not informed at the time of diagnosis by their school system what educational options an autistic child is entitled to. It is only after hiring lawyers and going through the legal process that many children have access to appropriate educational opportunities."
That was the observation not of a radical parent attorney, but of Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), who proudly calls himself, and is generally viewed as, a conservative. It was part of his statement on April 6, 2000, opening hearings on autism by the Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, of which he is Chairman. As Representative Burton volunteered in his statement, his interest in the subject came about when his grandson developed autism after receiving a vaccination.
A second session of those hearings was held on February 28 of this year, apparently with a slightly different focus: "Is IDEA being implemented as Congress intended?" In his statement opening this session, Chairman Burton noted that as Congress "began looking at the increased rates of autism . . . we repeatedly heard from families that they were facing serious challenges obtaining services from their schools." Citing requests from thousands of families around the nation, he stated that what parents are seeking are "programs that are working."
For some children with autism, that might be one hour of speech therapy five days a week rather than thirty minutes two days a week. For other children, it may mean forty hours a week of applied behavioral analysis at an early age to improve the child's educational experience and ability to interact and communicate.
The search for "programs that work" is not peculiar to parents of children with autism. It should be a concern of parents and school personnel alike, regardless of the child's disability. But what happens when, because it is not clear what "works," parents want to try one program or service, while school personnel want to try another? It is within this context that the issue of "educational methodology" becomes a sticking point. This EDLAW Briefing Paper will address, within the context of developing IEPs for children with autism, how and why problems of methodology arise and suggest how they might be addressed.

A Search for Causes and Treatments
Autism was first identified more than a half-century ago, but for the most part its causes remain unknown. Autism is characterized by minor to substantial impairments of communication, social interaction and learning. Unusual behaviors include repetitive actions, nonfunctional vocalizations (uses of the voice that have no apparent communicational aim), obsessive or ritualistic behavior and destructive acts. Yet autism is not always apparent; most people with autism do not have obvious physical or sensory abnormalities.

That is usually where the consensus ends. When the subjects of services and programs are addressed, there is a wide variation of opinion both about the relative effectiveness of specific programs and even whether any program is truly effective. For this reason (and one other), the question of how schools should serve children with autism has been both highly contentious and high profile. The "other" reason is the strong organization of parent support groups. Support groups for parents of children with autism may be the most active of any disability category. And with good reason. Given the lack of consensus on the effectiveness of various programs, the intensity of service usually requested, and the costs, parents of children with autism must be unusually persuasive.

Autism has long attracted conjectures, and promises, regarding causes and treatments. It should not be surprising that many families are attracted by claims of quick fixes and "miracle cures." But although some drugs may help to reduce some problem behaviors in people with autism, no biomedical treatment has proved ameliorative of the core deficits of the disorder. Among the claimed causes are a biological disorder of the brain, caused by the mother's exposure to toxic chemicals during pregnancy, which can be successfully treated by a complex process of biodetoxification, and the childhood MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination. Treatments have included diet, use of secretin and a program based on a "nonjudgmental and accepting attitude." Moreover, the short- and long-term effects of most educational, psychological and pharmacological interventions for autism have not been evaluated thoroughly in scientific studies.

This problem has been compounded by an apparent reluctance among autism professionals and autism organizations to distinguish publicly between science and what physicist Robert L. Park,. Ph.D., has termed "voodoo science." By this he means remedial measures that encompass fraud, junk science, pseudo-science and "pathological science," in which scientists yield to the natural human inclination to see what they expect.

Gina Greene, Ph.D., B.C.B.A., of the American Council on Science and Health, has been equally outspoken, noting that in methodologically rigorous studies, several autism interventions promoted extensively with unscientific evidence have proved ineffective, even harmful. Among the interventions she has cited are auditory integration training (AIT), facilitated communication (FC) and the application of dimethylglycine (DMG) or secretin.

Dr. Greene contends that the evidence against FC is clearer and more substantial than the evidence on AIT, describing it "much like using a Ouija board." She has particularly decried what she calls the "widespread uncritical adoption of FC by many professionals in disability services, special education and speech-language pathology," contending that this has resulted in the frequent displacement of other validated interventions for autism and other communication-related disorders. Moreover, she notes, "FC promoters advise facilitators to expect messages indicating that caregivers are abusing their disabled FC partners."

However, a growing body of research seems to indicate that applied behavior analysis (ABA, also called Lovaas treatment) can result in large, lasting improvements in cognitive, social and communication skills for some children with autism. There have been increasing numbers of children with serious developmental delays who, with early, intensive and comprehensive ABA intervention, have moved into the normal range in all skill domains. So while it is true that, even with early, intensive ABA intervention, some children with autism continue to require such services, parents' attraction to ABA is magnified by the realization that, without effective intervention, it is likely that a substantial majority of their children will require specialized services throughout their lives.

The Rise in Litigation
It has been claimed that autism is the fastest growing area of litigation in special education. To some degree, this is surprising. School districts have had a quarter century's experience with the individualization requirements of IDEA. Nonetheless, even Melinda Baird, Esq., who has established a national reputation representing school districts in disputes involving autistic students, has said that "many school districts still assume that their 'one size fits all' preschool program will withstand a parental challenge ... for in-home programming and other related services." In her testimony before the Burton Committee, Ms. Baird also stated that she had never "encountered a more volatile special education law issue than autism or more zealous advocates than parents of children with autism."

School postures in this regard were illustrated most recently by a particularly regrettable example from Seattle, Washington, where, according to the Seattle Times (April 8, 2001), the school district paid $180,000 "to be free of a blind, autistic student it considers dangerous." The article reported that "special education experts say [the settlement] is both rare and troubling," and that "court documents, school records and interviews with special education experts and those involved in the boy's care raise questions about the district's efforts." It also notes that an administrative hearing officer had previously found that the district had violated IDEA by improperly suspending him and then providing "virtually no services" for months, failing to train teachers and instructional aides to safely deal with him, and making inadequate efforts to design a program for him before deciding he belonged in a special institution. It concluded with a statement from the boy's court-appointed guardian ad litem: "... It is crystal clear that the Seattle School District simply did not want to serve this student." Those findings will resonate with many parents of children with disabilities.

Certainly controversies concerning autism are expensive to litigate, not least because, as Ms. Baird also observed, most judges are unfamiliar with its diagnosis, etiology and characteristics and, therefore, look to expert testimony for assistance. So both parties usually try to hire outside experts to counter the claims of their opponents. Here, though Ms. Baird did not note it, school districts clearly have the advantage since few parents have pockets as deep as publicly-fund schools. Nonetheless, given the market-driven economy in which we live, the rising demand has produced an increased supply of experts and programs at increasingly higher prices.
Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty
Given the lack of settled opinion among disability and education professionals about the effectiveness of various programs, it is almost inevitable that disputes will arise over which particular program is required to provide "a free appropriate public education" for any individual child. While this should be an issue for resolution by the IEP team, it is not uncommon for school personnel to assert that this is a matter of educational methodology, a decision reserved to educators. For children with autism, this frequently  arises when parents seek ABA or Lovaas programs, but schools offer either different programs or versions that parents believe are insufficiently intense.

The school districts' argument is simple: yes, we agree that your child has autism and requires some intervention, and we are happy to discuss with you, as the parents, what are the various alternative interventions, but at bottom the decision as to which intervention is appropriate for any specific child, and how it is implemented, is a question of educational methodology and that decision is entrusted to us.

This posture has its roots in the U.S. Supreme Court's first interpretation of the IDEA, Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). In Rowley, the "methodology" dispute arose over the choice of method for educating Amy Rowley, a student with a hearing impairment, "a question long debated among scholars," as the Court itself put it. The issue was brought to the courts because the parents and the school district disagreed. The school district agreed that Amy should have a wireless FM hearing aid and should receive instruction from a tutor for the deaf for one hour each day and from a speech therapist for three hours each week. The Rowleys agreed with parts of the IEP, but insisted that Amy also be provided a qualified sign-language interpreter in all her academic classes. Indeed, the Court stated in a footnote that "both the state hearing officer and the District Court were presented with evidence as to the best method for educating the deaf" and that "[t]he District Court accepted the testimony of respondents' experts that there was 'a trend supported by studies showing the greater degree of success of students brought up in deaf households using [the method of communication used by the Rowleys]'."

In reaching its conclusion, the Court placed great importance upon IEP procedures and parental participation in the IEP team. For example, it wrote that "Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process" and that Congress emphasized "full participation of concerned parties throughout the development of the IEP …" Moreover, the Court said, it was because of the importance of these procedures that judicial review of IEP decisions should be limited. Thus, the Court cautioned, IDEA's provision for judicial review was
by no means an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review. The very importance which Congress has attached to compliance with certain procedures in the preparation of an IEP would be frustrated if a court were permitted simply to set state decisions at nought.
This language has been used to support the position that schools may unilaterally decide questions of methodology. But that's not what it says. It says that schools and parents should make those decisions and that, assuming the proper procedures were used in reaching the decisions, courts should not interfere. In other words, it is important to understand that while Rowley precludes courts from substituting their judgment (or "second guessing") disputes over educational policy, neither does it vest school officials with sole authority to make those decisions within the context of the IEP meeting.

It is true, as the Court observed, that states have a general obligation under IDEA to gather and disseminate information from educational research, demonstration and similar projects, and adopt promising educational practices and materials. To this degree, Congress did not intend to "displace the primacy of States in the field of education," thereby leaving "questions of methodology … for resolution by the States." But that deference was appropriate only after "a court determines that the requirements of the Act have been met" and, as to this, 
the primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a handicapped child, and for choosing the educational method most suitable to the child's needs, was left by the Act to state and local educational agencies in cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child. 458 U.S. at 207 (emphasis supplied)
While the Court clearly recognizes the equal roles of school and parent, its direction for resolving disputes on this level is less certain. It refers to the extensive parental involvement IDEA provides in the development of state plans and policies "and in the formulation of the child's individual educational program," but it really does not indicate how differences of opinion concerning program methodology in individual cases should be resolved.
Unfortunately, the Court's direction has been blurred over the years. As a consequence, lower courts have tended to find that schools have plenary authority in decisions concerning educational methodology. One of the strongest statements of this position occurred in Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Educ., 853 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1988), where the court said:
Rowley leaves no doubt that parents, no matter how well motivated, do not have a right under the Act to compel a school district to provide a specific program or employ a specific methodology in providing for the education of a disabled child.
Changes in the 1999 IDEA Regulations
It makes sense, as the Supreme Court said, for courts to stay out of conflicts concerning general education policy. But it doesn't make any sense to give schools plenary authority over questions of methodology, particularly since the entire IEP process is premised on the value and importance of parental participation. Perhaps that is why the amendments to the IDEA regulations in 1999 contain a provision dealing with methodology.
The following language is in Regulation 300.26, which defines "Special Education":
(b)(3) Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction--
   (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and
   (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
The "Analysis of Comments and Changes" published with the amendments, 64 Federal Register 12405, 12552 (March 12, 1999), states
With regard to the definition of "specially designed instruction," some changes should be made. The committee reports to Pub. L. 105-17 make clear that specific day-to-day adjustments in instructional methods and approaches are not normally the sort of change that would require action by an IEP team. Requiring an IEP to include such a level of detail would be overly-prescriptive, impose considerable unnecessary administrative burden, and quite possibly be seen as encouraging disputes and litigation about rather small and unimportant changes in instruction. There is, however, a reasonable distinction to be drawn between a mode of instruction, such as cued speech, which would be the basis for the goals, objectives, and other elements of an individual student's IEP and should be reflected in that student's IEP, and a day-to-day teaching approach, i.e., a lesson plan, which would not be intended to be included in a student's IEP.
Case law recognizes that instructional methodology can be an important consideration in the context of what constitutes an appropriate education for a child with a disability. At the same time, these courts have indicated that they will not substitute a parentally- preferred methodology for sound educational programs developed by school personnel in accordance with the procedural requirements of the IDEA to meet the educational needs of an individual child with a disability.
In light of the legislative history and case law, it is clear that in developing an individualized education there are circumstances in which the particular teaching methodology that will be used is an integral part of what is "individualized" about a student's education and, in those circumstances will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student's IEP. For example, for a child with a learning disability who has not learned to read using traditional instructional methods, an appropriate education may require some other instructional strategy.
Other students' IEPs may not need to address the instructional method to be used because specificity about methodology is not necessary to enable those students to receive an appropriate education. There is nothing in the definition of "specially designed instruction" that would require instructional methodology to be addressed in the IEPs of students who do not need a particular instructional methodology in order to receive educational benefit. In all cases, whether methodology would be addressed in an IEP would be an IEP team decision.
Observations and Conclusions
This problem is difficult to examine objectively, often because of the lack of trust between school personnel and parents. At the outset, it is important to remember that we are not referring to all differences concerning choice of program or services, only those where there is considerable professional uncertainty or disagreement concerning the efficacy of the programs or services. That is why this discussion began by citing professional differences concerning programs and services for children with autism as an illustration. Thus, school personnel certainly should understand why parents might demand intensive ABA or LOVAAS as the program they feel will be most effective, particularly where the parents believe there is a limited window of opportunity for that program to be effective. And parents should understand that school personnel, given a wide range of programs and services and the lack of professional consensus about their effectiveness, will find it difficult to conclude that one program is clearly effective while another is not. Moreover, parents should acknowledge that, faced with choosing among options whose remedial effect is uncertain, it is not irrational or improper for school personnel to choose an option that is less expensive. For their part, school personnel should acknowledge that too many such choices appear to be made simply on the basis of cost with insufficient consideration of the school district's obligation to provide an effective educational program.

So, given the IEP team's inability to agree on questions of educational methodology, who should make decisions and how should they be made? Both sides probably agree that, even when presented with exhaustive "expert" evidence, hearing officers and judges are almost always poorly suited to make these decisions. However, these problems might appropriately be referred to some sort of mediation, possibly even arbitration, by a panel of suitably qualified impartial professionals. For example, suppose the panel consisted of one qualified professional chosen by each side and a third member, who would serve as chair, chosen either by the other two members. The panel would consider the recommendations of each party's experts and, if necessary, seek additional information from other experts. The panel's deliberations would be open to observation by the parties, but there would be no right of direct participation. The panel would then submit its findings to the IEP team.

Such an approach should mitigate parental concerns that decisions are being made primarily on cost rather than need and relieve school personnel from making decisions with insufficient information, while insulating them from the direct and indirect pressures to make decisions based on financial considerations. And it would provide a reasonable basis for either side to refrain from incurring the additional costs of hearing and litigation.

Why methodology belongs in your Child's IEP and must be discussed.

In 1997, Congress passed the 1997 amendments to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is the law guaranteeing educational rights to children with disabilities. In 1999, the Federal Department of Education issued its regulations which give the details to implement the law. State rules cannot restrict a right protected by Federal law.

One of the most important changes in recent Federal law deals with methodology. As background, twenty years ago the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion interpreting the prior law, in which it stated that as long as the school district had a reasonable methodology leading to a student's progress, the parents could not require the school to adopt a different method. Schools often interpreted this decision to say that the parents could not discuss methodology at an IEP meeting, even when the schools had no methodology.

In 1997 Congress found that the implementation of IDEA was 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. sec 1400 (c) (4).

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA and the 1999 regulations eliminated the schools' misinterpretation by specifically including methodology as part of the instruction individualized for the student. The 1997 act defines "Special Education" as "Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. sec. 1401 (25). The 1999 regulations further defined instruction as follows:
"Sec. 300.26 Special education.
(a) General. (1) As used in this part, the term special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including--
(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings;
(3) Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction--
(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children."

This section is one of the most important clarifications of the law. It means parents can discuss the content, methodology and delivery of the education, and not leave the details to the school to work out 6 months into a 9 month school year. Methodology may be more important to children with autism and language disorders than any other facet of their program. However, the definition of "Specially designed instruction" was conspicuously omitted from the August 2000 Illinois regulations. Beware of school districts which cling to the old evasions and will not discuss methodology at the IEP meeting on the basis that the Illinois regulations are silent on the issue. Under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, State regulations cannot take away a Federal right. Insist the IEP team discuss methodology and state their reasons in writing.
To enable the definition of methodology, the 1999 Federal regulations specify:
"Sec. 300.347 Content of IEP.
(a) General. The IEP for each child with a disability must include--...
(3) A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program, modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child--
(i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
(ii) To be involved and progress in the general curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
(iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section."

Appendix A to the regulations also reiterates that the IEP must address how the child will be involved in and progress in the general school curriculum and what special education and other services and supports must be described in the IEP.
The Federal regulation 300.347 is echoed in the Illinois regulation, 23 Ill. Admin. Code 226.230(a)(7).
Methodology is also described in the commentary filed with the Federal regulations:
With regard to the definition of "specially designed instruction,'' some changes should be made. The committee reports to Pub. L. 105-17 make clear that specific day-to-day adjustments in instructional methods and approaches are not normally the sort of change that would require action by an IEP team. Requiring an IEP to include such a level of detail would be overly-prescriptive, impose considerable unnecessary administrative burden, and quite possibly be seen as encouraging disputes and litigation about rather small and unimportant changes in instruction. There is, however, a reasonable distinction to be drawn between a mode of instruction, such as cued speech, which would be the basis for the goals, objectives, and other elements of an individual student's IEP and should be reflected in that
student's IEP, and a day-to-day teaching approach, i.e., a lesson plan, which would not be intended to be included in a student's IEP.
Case law recognizes that instructional methodology can be an important consideration in the context of what constitutes an appropriate education for a child with a disability. At the same time, these courts have indicated that they will not substitute a parentally- preferred methodology for sound educational programs developed by school personnel in accordance with the procedural requirements of the IDEA to meet the educational needs of an individual child with a disability.
In light of the legislative history and case law, it is clear that in developing an individualized education there are circumstances in which the particular teaching methodology that will be used is an integral part of what is "``individualized'' about a student's education and, in those circumstances will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student's IEP. For example, for a child with a learning disability who has not learned to read using traditional instructional methods, an appropriate education may require some other instructional strategy.
Other students' IEPs may not need to address the instructional method to be used because specificity about methodology is not necessary to enable those students to receive an appropriate education. There is nothing in the definition of ``specially designed instruction'' that would require instructional methodology to be addressed in the IEPs of students who do not need a particular instructional methodology in order to receive educational benefit. In all cases, whether methodology would be addressed in an IEP would be an IEP team decision.
Other changes to the definition of "specially designed instruction'' are not needed. The distinction between accommodations that change the general curriculum and those that do not, as one commenter requests, would be difficult to make because of the individualized nature of these determinations. Regardless of the reasons for the accommodation or modification, it must be provided if necessary to address the special educational needs of an individual
student.
Federal Register: March 12, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 48), page 12552; but see H. Rep. No. 105-95 (1997, pp. 105-195).

The 1997 IDEA and the 1999 regulations do more than say that an IEP is setting the annual goals. The IEP team, which includes the parents, must determine the how, how the child will meet those goals. The schools cannot say "leave it to the schools to figure it out has the school year elapses." The IEP must specify the modifications, supports and services, and the "Special Education," which includes methodology. Mr Cohen also made the point that regulation 300.121(e) states that each State shall ensure that a free, appropriate public education is available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services even the child is advancing from grade to grade.

You should note one other place in the regulations regarding methodology, and that concerns meetings. The language of the statute is a little more problematic, but still consistent with the commentary above.

Sec. 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in meetings.

(a) General. The parents of a child with a disability must be
afforded, in accordance with the procedures of Secs. 300.562-300.569, an
opportunity to--
(1) Inspect and review all education records with respect to--
(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child and
(ii) The provision of FAPE to the child; and
(2) Participate in meetings with respect to --
(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the
child; and
(ii) The provision of FAPE to the child.
(b) Parent participation in meetings.
(1) Each public agency shall provide notice consistent with Sec. 300.345(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations involving public agency personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provision if those issues are not addressed in the child's IEP. A meeting also does not include preparatory activities that public agency personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.
(c) Parent involvement in placement decisions. (1) Each public agency shall ensure that the parents of each child with a disability are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child.
Although the schools can have secret meetings, they cannot implement a change in methodology if methodolgy is addressed in the IEP. Given the placement of the words "teaching methodolgy" in the contest of lesson plans, and the discussion of methodology in the definitions and commentary cited above, this regulation seems to limit the extent schools can co-opt the methodology choices. The regulation lends support for the idea expressed in the commentary that some methodology issues are so important that they need to be specified in the IEP itself. If the methodology is important enough to be in the IEP, schools cannot conduct secret "methodolgy meetings" to undermine the effectiveness of a method chosen by the IEP team. The topics of the informal, school-only meetings are limited to lesson plans, coordination of services and such.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois also discusses methodology in the case of T.H. v. the Palatine School District, a copy of which can be found on the
WrightsLaw web library.
The court stated that the school's argument that it had the right to choose methodolgy was not valid since the school district had no methodology. The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Rowley could only apply if the school had chosen and implemented a methodology calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/fishstep/method.html

Another article discussing methodology:
Reed Martin, J.D.
Special Education Law
The website where you get real answers to your questions with strategies to secure your child's rights!

Methodology must be discussed.
In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, stated that at the IEP "the primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a handicapped child and for choosing the educational method most suitable to the child's needs, was left by the Act to state and local educational agencies in cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child."

If you have to choose the method most suitable then you have to discuss methods and compare them. If you have had great results from one approach previously used with your child, then the school would have to document why another approach would be more suitable. The IEP committee, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Rowley, is not allowed to settle for second best.

If the school district still insists on another approach, they must give you Prior Written Notice explaining why they insist on that approach and are refusing your proposal. That notice must explain in writing every evaluation, test, record or report that the school district uses to justify their position.

If the school says, "we do not have anyone to evaluate for, or use, the approach you are suggesting" then point out that they have a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) by which they acquire and disseminate promising educational practices. So if your local district is not familiar with the approach you want, then they must contact the State for assistance.

Your local district and state education agency have promised, in a sworn affidavit attached to their application for federal funds under the IDEA since 1974, that they operate a system of personnel development that will acquire, disseminate and put into place promising educational practices.

In one recent federal district court case, Asbury v. Missouri Dept. of Education (E.D. MO 1999) the parents wanted the Lovaas/ABA approach for their child with autism. The local school said they did not know how to do it so they did not have to offer it. The parents insisted they were denied consideration of a free appropriate public education because the local district could not consider one approach that must be available since it is a "promising educational practice."

If the district refuses to consider some approaches, then how can they promise that they are proposing the approach most suitable to meet your child's needs. The school district and state education agency moved to have the court dismiss this lawsuit, but the court said "it states a claim upon which relief can be granted" and ordered the case to full trial.

In Tatro v. Irving Ind. Sch. Dist., 468 U.S. 992 (1984), the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of SCPD -- the school cannot say "we don't have any staff who know how to do that," "we won't train current staff to learn how to do it" and "we won't hire any new staff who already know how to do that" -- so we don't have to offer it. In 1999 the Supreme court ruled 7-2 to reaffirm Tatro in a case called Garret F. v. Cedar Rapids 526 U.S. 66 (1999) on exactly the same issue of staff training to meet the child's needs.
Source:  http://www.reedmartin.com/askreedmethodology.html