SPECIAL-EDUCATION SUIT OFFERS NEW OPPORTUNITY.

Byline: Claire C. Cavallaro

SHOULD the American Civil Liberties Union represent all special-education students in the Los Angeles Unified School District?

In 1993, the ACLU and the law firm of Newman, Aaranson, and Vanaman filed a class-action lawsuit against the school district on behalf of all special-education students.

The suit alleges that the LAUSD had failed to identify and appropriately serve children with disabilities in violation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. In an attempt to reach a fair resolution of the case, the LAUSD and the ACLU negotiated a settlement that was released earlier this year.

At public hearings in January, some parents supported the agreement because it targets problems they have experienced with the system. But others voiced opposition, contending that they did not wish to be represented by the ACLU, nor to be a part of a class-action suit.

This latter group was satisfied with their children's placements in special-education centers, which offer small class sizes, a protected environment, and specialized services such as physical and occupational therapy. They were fearful that the settlement, which included a provision to "integrate the district's 18 special-education schools," would have eliminated those schools and forced their children onto regular campuses. (This provision has since been modified.)

Yet another group of parents wanted their children to receive special-education support in regular schools and classrooms, but opposed the settlement because of lack of parental involvement in its development. They were suspicious that the consent decree would produce only the appearance of change, but no real solutions.

The case has raised questions regarding the role of the ACLU and the courts in determining the nature of special-education programs and services. The fact is that historically, such class-actions have played a critical role in shaping special-education policy.

Only 30 years ago, most students with severe disabilities were denied an education by the public schools. Educational or rehabilitative services were often available only in private schools or in residential institutions far from the children's homes and communities.

Parents were told that their children did not belong in the public schools and that the public schools had nothing to offer them. Because they could not learn to read and write, they were considered not to be educable.

This changed only as a result of parents who demanded - at first through the courts and later through Congress - that their children receive the same access to an education as any other child. As a result, school districts must now provide a range of special-education services and placements, based on the needs of the individual child.

Parental involvement and the right to approve or not approve any placement or services are assured by law. Thus, at least in theory, all students in special education and their families now benefit from those early class-action suits.

Is there a continuing need for this type of class-action? Many advocates would argue that children with disabilities comprise approximately 10 percent of the population, and as a minority they need government protection to assure that their rights are guaranteed.

Most school districts did not provide access for children with disabilities until the federal government in 1975 passed a law requiring schools to provide a free, appropriate education for all students with disabilities. In the 21 years since, parents and other advocates have continued to take school districts to task (and to court) for failing to implement this law.

Can a class-action suit really represent all of the students, and should it? The class-action suit is a tool to assure that a court decision applies not only to a single case, but to all affected individuals.

The case against the LAUSD addresses a variety of problems, including lack of high level administrative support, lengthy delays in providing services, lack of qualified special-education teachers, inadequate staff training, and insufficient parent involvement. Although some parents are satisfied with the services provided by the LAUSD, even the children of satisfied parents probably are (or will be) affected by some of the problems addressed in the suit, such as inadequate staff training.

Nevertheless some parents argue that the suit does not represent their interests. The lack of substantial parent involvement limits the credibility and strength of the settlement. Parental input early in the process could have provided broader support and representation of diverse views and preferences.

The task now facing the ACLU and the school district is to revise the settlement based on parental input - and to make it acceptable to parents with varying preferences, including those who want their children to receive special education in their neighborhood schools, and those who want services in special-education centers.

The issues of inclusion and "desegregation" of the special-education centers cannot be resolved by this settlement. These will require considerably more discussion and deliberation among parents, teachers and administrators.

But the settlement offers an opportunity for considerable change in the LAUSD. The class-action suit and the consultant's report have documented problems that have been known to parents and teachers for many years.

The willingness of the district and the ACLU to settle, and thus avoid lengthy and costly litigation, makes resolution of these problems feasible. It would seem in the best interest of the students if the parents, educators and attorneys could agree to use this opportunity to find some real solutions.

CAPTION(S):

PHOTO

(color) Seeking a solution Parents voice their concern about the quality of special education. Evan Yee/Daily News