Of course when the TBS owners trying to avoid it like the plauge helps as well. I think Deborah mentioned a case out in Montana, the guy went so far as to write his own legislation that exempted all TBS's in the state from any sort of oversight or state regulation.
Not just any ol guy. Paul Clark is a State Rep. Involved (used to own) in two programs. Advertises that he provided therapy at both facilities, and has no license. And is advocating for self-regulation. Hope Schmidt nails his ass in the next legislative session.
Speaking of unethical practices.... gotta get over to the Aspen forum and read THIS....
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=20389A teaser from the summary- you gotta read this document. Goes into great detail about the details of this program and how it fails in so many ways. Aspen Education Group :scared: :
Educational Benefit
Dr. Conway**,
Ms. Bitz and J.J.?s parents expressed the belief that J.J. was not ready to leave the highly structured and supervised environment provided at MBA, and that he would regress during after-school hours and his behavior would deteriorate. Even if this is true, it does not prove that J. J. would not receive educational benefit from his IEP.
**Dr. Conway is/was MBAs consulting psych. Didn't bother to mention it before or during the IEP fiasco. Ms Bitz of course, is the Adm Dir for MBA.
Gets better. Explorations Wilderness, no prof staff, recommends MBA, who has no professional staff, yet they're 'assessing' this kid with major problems that need two years to 'fix'. Aspen will later acquire Explorations. Kid also ends up going to SUWS. Unbelievable nightmare story.
Ms. Pack-Patton, Ms. Harrell and Mr. Dunn all believed that J.J.?s IEP could be implemented at the BIS program even if J.J.?s parents were unable to provide adequate reinforcement at home. Mr. Miller believed J.J. could be successful in the BIS program even if his parents had difficulty
controlling his behavior at home, although J.J.?s likelihood of attaining his annual goals in the September IEP would be diminished if he did not behave well at home. Ms. Pack-Patton observed that students with the kinds of problems J.J. experienced often had trouble in the community with their peers and parents, and that it was
usually more successful to maintain them in the community where they needed to develop new skills. As Ms. Pack-Patton and Ms. Harrell have the most personal experience with the BIS program, the students it serves and its effectiveness, I give their testimony the most weight in evaluating this issue.
MBA and Other Residential Placements
FINAL ORDER
J.J. & West Linn-Wilsonville S.D., Page 38
The parents, in their initial hearing request, claimed the District was denying J.J. a FAPE by refusing to continue his enrollment at MBA. Subsequently they broadened their claim by asserting that J.J. required placement at MBA or another residential facility in order to receive a FAPE.
Despite this change in the parents? assertion, all of their evidence is essentially related to J.J.?s education at MBA. For example, both Dr.Conway and Dr. Moran noted that if J.J. did not have the opportunity to finish his MBA program it would represent another (damaging) failure for him. This claim is irrelevant both to any educational need J.J. may have and to the parents? later position that J.J. could receive a FAPE at a residential facility other than MBA.
MBA cannot provide J. J. with a FAPE. It lacks the trained personnel necessary to implement the counseling provisions of J.J.?s September 1999 IEP, which (other than the placement recommendation) met with the approval of all participants.
In fact, it lacks any mental health professionals or trained special education teachers who can address the ?psychiatric issues? which Dr. Conway identified as ?a formidable barrier to [J.J.?s] ability to benefit from regular educational opportunities.? See excerpt from Dr. Conway?s April 1999 evaluation, quoted in Exhibit A57.
It does not offer daily communication with J.J.?s parents.** And, significantly, it provides few opportunities for students to interact with nondisabled peers. Another residential facility might be able to satisfy the requirements in the September 1999 IEP. Nevertheless, no residential facility would be the least restrictive environment in which J.J. can receive educational benefit.
**In fact, the document said they only had contact every two weeks.
Summary
The BIS program, with the additional supports and services described in the September 1999 IEP, offers J.J. a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment where he can receive educational benefit. There is no convincing evidence that J.J. requires a residential
placement in order to receive educational benefit.
Rather, the evidence indicates that the parents enrolled J.J. in MBA because, despite their strenuous and loving efforts, it had become impossible for them to control J.J. or feel comfortable and safe with him at home. ::mecry:: No free babysitting.
A residential placement in a remote location in central Oregon is a considerably more restrictive option for J.J. than education in the BIS program at a local high school, where he would interact with nondisabled as well as disabled students and would be able to live with his parents. It therefore does not meet the mandate of the IDEA. See 20 USC §1412(a)(5), 34 CFR§300.550.
FINAL ORDER
J.J. & West Linn-Wilsonville S.D., Page 39
