Letter to the editor: Scott Cost’s column wrong about school district lawsuit

I read Scott Cost's February 20 column in the Fort Mill Times concerning my son's due process hearing and need to correct several points.

Mr. Cost claims he knows "many of the participants involved on both sides," seeming to imply inside knowledge of the case. I find this curious because, while we once lived in the same neighborhood, neither my wife nor I recall ever speaking with Mr. Cost. I doubt he could without research identify me on sight, knows either of my children's names, or could say what I do for a living.

On the other hand, Mr. Cost may well know someone employed by the Fort Mill School District, and they may well have told him a story flattering to the district. Unfortunately, Mr. Cost's account is filled with incorrect statements and omissions of key facts, thus forming a false narrative. To note just a few:

Mr. Cost does not mention that services were provided to our son only after the state Department of Education ruled in 2016 the district had violated federal and state law. It was not voluntary on their part, as they note in the meeting minutes granting services. In fact, it was this lawbreaking over several years that led to reimbursement for our expenses over part of that period. It seems strange to leave out the central fact of the hearing.

In addition, the 11 social skills sessions Mr. Cost mentioned were part of the remedy for past failures the state ordered as part of their 2016 ruling against the school district. Again, it was not voluntary.

No, it did not take "three years and a state diagnosis" to make a spectrum determination. He was first diagnosed in 2014 by a Fort Mill school psychologist after issues dating back to 2009. It took several more diagnoses at our expense and the state ruling of lawbreaking by Fort Mill for them to finally provide services. Even then, the school district continued officially denying they had done anything wrong before finally conceding their illegal behavior during last month's hearing.

No, there were not "literally dozens of meetings" concerning our son, even over the full seven years. There were fewer than two per year on average dating back to 2009.

Mr. Cost states we were always in the principal's office on our son's behalf. In fact, we rarely saw Mr. Norton. However, we were frequently contacted by the guidance office or school nurse regarding spectrum symptoms the district was simultaneously denying they saw. We have to wonder where Mr. Cost got this very specific and very mistaken idea from, though.

Finally, Mr. Cost speculates regarding our moving from Fort Mill and homeschooling our children. We are not presently at liberty to discuss our reasons for doing this. Suffice it to say for now that both these choices were forced upon us and were the least of several poor options. When we are able to say more, the reason for our silence will be clear.

Mr. Cost's confusion about these basic facts of the case is not surprising, since he did not attend the hearing. While he is entitled to his own opinion, Mr. Cost is not entitled to his own facts, even in the age of "fake news." No one wins when falsehood is presented as truth. I hope that Mr. Cost and the Times will take responsibility for his errors, correct them on the record, and in the future refrain from uncritically repeating gossip as fact.

This story was originally published February 24, 2017 at 9:28 PM with the headline "Letter to the editor: Scott Cost’s column wrong about school district lawsuit."