[ad_1]
One more dispute that reaches the world of administrative justice for the lack of full right to education for the disabled student, since cases continue to be registered, more and more frequent and repeated, despite the constant jurisprudence that is now consolidated on the point respect of the correct hours of assignment to the student in question, if not also of the lack of assignment of the assistant to the communication.
The fact
The ruling of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio of September 25, n ° 09871/2020, deals with the case of an appeal filed by a family through their lawyer to request compliance with the provisions of the GLHO. In the present case, the operational GLHO considered it necessary to “increase the support hours to obtain a 1: 1 ratio; Guarantee the presence of AEC and Communication Assistant. “But the student was given a number of hours of support and educational assistance respectively 11 and 20 hours per week, while the Communication Assistant was not granted. The ruling indicates that even in the previous year, he was assigned a few hours of support and a lower AEC than that proposed by Operation GLH with the resulting consequences.
The GLHO ruling is binding on the school
The Section in similar rulings was able to clarify the binding nature of the GLHO in these terms “Well, of the nature proposed by the Operational Disability Working Group (GLHO) in terms of an intersubjective and interdisciplinary body that is the exclusive custodian of the competence to indicate the hours of school support and educational assistant that must be assigned to a student before proven situations. disability in accordance with Law no. 104/1992, it follows that the IEP cannot ignore these prescriptions, contrary to the provisions of the GLHO regarding the hours of school support and educational assistance to be assigned to the minor, unless the IEP contains precise medical counter-arguments. legal and specialized technicians. accompanied by a particularly deep motivation of the neuropsychiatric, medical and psychotherapeutic reasons that lead to deviate, even partially, from what is prescribed by the competent GLHO, which is why it should be noted that in matters of allocation of support hours to disabled students, The end of the director with which the allocation of support hours is established cannot make the resolutions of the collegiate body competent to establish the severity of the handicap and prepare the individual intervention plan in support of the minor without concrete effects in a situation of disability recognized c how serious. “(Sez. 3 -OMISSIS- twice).
The GLHO
As required by LEGISLATIVE DECREE April 13, 2017, n. 66, article 9 subsection 10, “with the purpose of defining EIPs and verifying the inclusion process, including the proposal to quantify hours of support and other support measures, taking into account the operational profile, in each school Establish the groups of operational work for the inclusion of individual students with a disability condition established for the purposes of school inclusion.
Who is the GLHO made of?
Each operational working group is made up of the team of co-owners or the class council, with the participation of the parents of the child, the student or the student, the student or the student with disabilities, or whoever. exercises parental responsibility for specific professional figures, internal and external to the school institution, who interact with the class and with the child or child, the student or the student, the student or the student with disabilities, as well as with the necessary support from the multidisciplinary evaluation unit.
Are GLHO members entitled to compensation?
The members of the operational working group are not entitled to any compensation, indemnification, attendance fees, reimbursement of expenses and any other emoluments. The activation of operational working groups should not result, even indirectly, in higher personnel costs.
Students also have the right to participate in the GLHO
Within the operational working group, mentioned in paragraph 10 of article 9 of the DGLS in question, the active participation of students with a proven developmental-age disability condition is ensured for the purposes of school inclusion in accordance with the principle of self-determination.
[ad_2]
