Letter: Public schools better for autistic
"The conversation about the recently passed bill should not be twisted to raise church-state questions," writes Bradley Gerstman. "Instead, we as a community must focus on the necessity of such legislation to help children with special needs have access to educational settings where they can excel." Credit: iStock Photo
In response to "Giving more kids better school options" [Opinion, July 16], the argument seems to be that this new law is necessary for children with autism who do not have options beyond a public school program. There is also a suggestion that the school districts' committees on special education are not prudent in their efforts to make appropriate recommendations.
First, we have to distinguish between New York State-approved programs, which specialize in supporting children with autism, and private schools that don't normally have the facility, professional staff or experience to support and educate children with global deficits.
This bill would result in increased litigation, at a significant cost to the school district, when parents unilaterally place their children into a private school of their choosing under the pretext that the school district did not consider all factors. The process would become protracted, acrimonious and litigious.
This bill would weaken the role of the Committee on Special Education, which is made up of psychologists, certified special education teachers and general education teachers. The committee considers all factors, including the needs of the family, when recommending a program to support a child.
Beyond the economics and politics, the real loser in this process would be the child, who would not receive the appropriate support.
Stuart Grossman, Roslyn Heights
Editor's note: The writer is the director of pupil personnel services for Roslyn Public Schools, overseeing special education.
