The Baltimore special education system remains in a total state of flux after 22 years of litigation. There is little planning or implementation of the court ordered compensatory education. Many of the top administrators have resigned and many positions remain unfilled. The new interim head of the school system has promised that special education will be a top priority but those words do not appear to have much substance.
The one thing that is certain among all of this uncertainty is that the school district's high powered Washington D.C. law firm has been approved for $1 million in fees for next year. Well even if the children's needs remain on hold, the school district's law firm will have its contractual obligations met. Wow I feel so much better knowing that. Is there something wrong with this picture ? Maybe we should recast these school district fees as expert witness expenses for the parents so it is not payable under the precedent of Arlington Central case; just a wild thought !
I am an economist at Middle Tn state and the father of an autistic boy. The costs of litigation is a hidden cost. In other words, it is not included in the cost data under "how much is costs to educate a special needs child", yet it surely is a cost associated with educating such children. The opportunity cost is staggering. Think of the myriad alternative uses for this money. I am very interested in getting data on how much districts and states spend on litigation. Can anyone help me out?
Posted by: martin kennedy | July 19, 2006 at 09:41 PM
I got so fired up reading this article as well as the rest of your blog I went to Stanley Greenspan's posting Special Education Agenda on his blog http://stanleyigreenspan.blogspot.com/2004/06/agenda-for-special-education.html and commented basically wondering why the Baltimore School Board can't invest in his ideas rather than the cost of litigation.
Posted by: Amy Cederbaum | August 17, 2006 at 01:13 PM