I rarely have the opportunity to read the New York Times. But today is Father's Day - so we bought my husband The Times this morning and gave him time to read it. I took a turn later in the day, but didn't get past the first article on the first page of the front section. Right off, $74 billion spent on educating severely disabled kids seems like it's presented as excessive, but read on.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, was passed as law in 1975 - but the article doesn't mention that it was never fully funded by the federal government. The highest it was ever funded was at 40%, the norm these days is more like 10%, with states left to try to make up the difference, if they choose, and no enforcement if they don't. So - it's expensive for poor public schools - but the federal government never gave them sufficient money to do the job they've been doing and continue to try to do.

The low-paid aides do most of the attempts at educating the most difficult to educate. $21,000-$36,000 per year. With no training.

The principal, Rebecca Bravo, thinks the kids need to be with other kids with a range of disabilities, so they'll learn from one another. But there's no research mentioned or indication that the kids are aware of or learning from their classmates. They also change classes every 50 minutes, to try to make their experience similar to non-disabled peers - but again, no proof that this benefits kids - just that the principal thought it sounded like a good idea. She thinks students like these need more than art and music - but music is what Donovan responds to, and it isn't appropriate that it's not used to teach him his curriculum.

Dononvan is blind. He ignores the ball dangled in front of him to hit in adaptive PE. Does it beep? How should he know it's there? Why should he hit it? His science teacher, Mr. Torres, does sound like he's using all of his creative abilities to teach his students, but it's unclear that he has the training and support to teach a blind student, such as Donovan, the only legally blind student in the class.

He has self-injurious behaviors, which clearly get in the way of his education, yet his IEP goals are recognizing coins?! His mother thinks he needs more physical therapy, but why isn't that need incorporated into his IEP? Why are his IEP goals set at 100%? If the goals weren't met in past years, what was changed to try to help him reach them in future years? The staff? the methods? the goals? Why carry goals forward for 15 years without realizing that they hadn't worked in the past, and weren't likely to work now, without making a change?

His past aide, Roosevelt Adams, was effective at getting through to him and teaching him, so the aide was changed - because the principal thought this would help him in his future. Change is good - she reasons - to help kids prepare for future changes. But what happened is that this change caused Donovan to regress in his skills. So change the aide back to help Donovan learn? No - stick with what isn't working - after we've seen what does work. His current aide, Ms. Mack, has no idea what Donovan is learning or retaining - how is that appropriate?

Music works. Yet it's not mentioned as being included as a service or a methodology for his IEP. Are recognizing apples and seeds developmentally appropriate when he doesn't have pre-requisite skills? When he doesn't learn or respond, the aides give up after a few minutes. There is no mention of anyone trying another approach.

Brain research is amazing - kids and adults of all ages can learn, if taught appropriately. Consider what is possible in the book, The Brain That Changes Itself.

The shame here is not in the excessive cost wasted on this education - it's that it's not being done effectively. And the administrators are at fault. Not the system and concept of inclusion and raising the bar for kids with severe disabilities.

Inclusion provides hope, according to David Rose of CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). But inclusion means with typical peers, and CAST is about use of technology - the connection between inclusion and technology isn't explained - maybe the reporter just had a connection to CAST.

Because of his age, his care is being reduced, to get him ready for the future inappropriate insufficient care ahead of him. This young man does not speak or communicate, yet his speech therapy is one hour per week. He is blind, so his vision therapy is a half-hour per week. Who is assessing to see if these services are effective and appropriate? The waste of money is not the money spent to educate Donovan, but paying the administrators who oversee his education and his IEP and continue doing what doesn't work, and discontinue what does work for this young man. Mr. Adams made effective emotional connections that resulted in measurably effective communication. So that was discontinued. That is the waste here.

No place is perfect, no person is perfect. IDEA doesn't promise perfection, it defends what is appropriate. Who was looking out for what was appropriate for Donovan for these past 15 years?