News-Record.com

WHAT IS JILL WILSON'S BACKGROUND OF EXPERTISE WITH AUTISTIC CHILDREN? I THOUGHT SHE WAS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM'S LAWYER.

Lets remember what the Federal Laws says about, L.R.E.( Least Restrictive Enviroment) and it appears to purposely build a separate facility would be some type of restrictiveness on these students,as clear violation of the I.D.E.A

Tell us,
Jill Wilson is the school board attorney and is knowledgeable about laws and policies regarding the operation of schools, including issues dealing with inclusion, public separate settings, least restrictive environment, etc. While operating a separate autistic facility is not illegal, Wilson discourages this because there are districts elsewhere that try to be more inclusive when designing facilities.

As I said what does this have to do with legal? I rest my case.

There are federal and state laws that govern the education of special education. IDEA is a federal law that provides for special education (see: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html) Every school district, public school, and teacher must follow the tenants of IDEA. There are also state laws concerning special education that the district must follow.
I believe that Jill Wilson, as the board's attorney, is trying provide guidance to the board to insure that IDEA is strictly adhered to. Otherwise, the district could be opened up to possible federal/state sanctions and fines as well as possible lawsuits from special eduacation interest groups and families.

thank you, Autism mom. now that makes sense. when Wilson spoke it still seemed like she was offering more of an expert opinion on autism versus legal ramifications

I have worked in a public separate school for children with autism and I know the majority of the students in that school would not function in an inclusion setting. Many of the students are assisgned to the school because they couldn't function in an inclusion setting. Some them are thriving there and are making better progress in that structured environment than they would in any other environment. My biggest concern, though, is how these students are being referred to in this article as: "autistic students" They are students, children, brothers, sisters, friends, etc.. before they are autistic. They should be referred to as students or individuals with autism not autistic students. They are people before they are autistic.

As I understand the proposal, no autistic students would attend either Gateway or the new Gateway West. The bond issue including funds for the building of Gateway West has already passed. The new "mini-centers" Jill Wilson proposed, along with the renovations of McIver and Craven, will have to await a further bond issue.

If they wish to create "mini-centers" why not include one in the Gateway West plans? Then, providing facilities for low functioning autistic kids would not be completely dependent on future actions that may or may not ever occur.

Secondly, does anyone think it odd that the proposal suggests that McIver would need millions of dollars of renovations before it is adequate for typical kids but, apparently, it is felt adequate for low functioning autistic kids right now without any renovation?

As the parent of a child with severe autism, I believe that we need to build a modern, state of the art facility to serve our children. The school our kids attend now is 80 years old and in desperate need of repair. Just because our kids have severe disabilities does not mean that they deserve to be put last and ignored.