Despite allowing it for up to 15 years, the Manhattan, Kansas, school system banned Applied Behavior Analysis therapy in the classroom provided by outside providers in July of this year.

Earlier this year, USD 383 Manhattan-Ogden updated its “Visitors to the School Policy” — called “Policy KM” — to reflect guidance by the Kansas Association of School Boards that such “external agencies” shouldn’t be allowed in the classroom, citing liability concerns and potential “disruption” of the learning environment.

Applied Behavior Analysis therapy helps children with Autism Spectrum Disorder learn to function outside of a controlled environment.

According to parent Kevin Steinmetz, whose child with ASD was formerly enrolled in USD 383, children with ASD often have trouble “generalizing” skills. For example, a child with ASD who has no trouble speaking to their parents may struggle to realize they can talk to other adults the same way. ABA helpers — called Registered Behavior Technicians — can assist students with “Natural Environment ABA” to generalize those skills. Behavioral technicians are also trained to watch for impending meltdowns or other problem behaviors and redirect them.

However, in July of this year, that policy change effectively banned ABA therapy in Manhattan schools — even though it had never been an issue before. RBTs receive 40 hours of training — double the 20 hours the district says paraprofessionals receive.

“So for the past like 15 years, USD 383 had been allowing ABA therapists to go into schools with kids, Steinmetz said. “They had this wonderful autism specialist, this autism coordinator named Helen Miller, who, if I were Catholic, I would nominate her for sainthood. I think she’s a wonderful person, and she would make sure to find a way for kids. 

“With autism, if they needed this, to have that person in school with them, and that person would go into the classroom with them and help them. It’s basically like having a para in class, right? One that’s better trained to deal with children with autism, more heavily supervised, and more intimately familiar with that specific child.”

Steinmetz said his child had received those services in preschool—the child received about 37.5 hours of ABA a week; others may need less—and decided to pursue the therapy for kindergarten. All was going well, and the principal had allowed the therapist in, when, over the summer, the district banned ABA therapy.

Contradictory reasons given for ABA ban

Steinmetz said he was given multiple reasons for the ban.

“Now this is where things get really interesting,” Steinmetz said. “And by interesting, I mean ‘driving me absolutely crazy.’ For the past year, they made a number of claims, and the goal posts have continually changed over time. 

“One of them is that they claim that if they allow in these therapies, then they will be liable to pay for them under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which is, of itself, based on a fundamental misreading of the act. And we demonstrated this, but they still cite that as a reason, even though our insurance covers it. They don’t believe that the Americans with Disability Act applies here, which is the core argument.”

Steinmetz said the district also suggested there were “privacy concerns” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, and then cited “liability concerns.”

“So the other argument they started making, which they only started really articulating recently … is they are claiming now that having a third-party medical provider in the classroom presents, and I quote, ‘catastrophic liability for the district.'” Stinemetz said. “And they are claiming that it would be impossible to get liability insurance to cover it, despite the fact that other districts don’t seem to have a problem with this, and there are even entire states now that protect access to medical ABA therapy in the classroom and don’t seem to have a problem with this.”

In fact, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Florida have all mandated ABA therapy. In 2024, Louisiana passed legislation allowing outside providers for ABA therapy and prohibiting schools from denying families the ability to bring in outside behavioral health providers for evaluations, assessments, or treatment.

“When we filed an ADA accommodation request with the district, they just flat out said ‘what we are providin is sufficient for your (child), and so we do not feel that this is necessary,'” Steinmetz said. “And I’m like, ‘well, I’m glad you feel confident about this over the word of a neuropsychologist, pediatrician, and parents.'”

Indeed, when the Sentinel questioned Manhattan-Ogden Superintendent of Schools Eric Ried about the issue, he cited many of the same issues.

Reid said that while IDEA requires that individuals with disabilities receive a “Free and Appropriate Public Education,” or “FAPE”, and the Americans with Disabilities Act requires “reasonable accommodation” to be made, the district does not consider allowing a behavioral technician in to be “reasonable.”

“Our district priority is supporting the educational goals of the student by implementing their IEP.  IEP’s (sic) are implemented by district employees as required to provide Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the student,” Reid said. “It was made clear by our insurance providers that people serving in a third party capacity at the request of the parents would not be covered under district liability policies which could expose the district and employees to increased liability exposure.

“It is our legal responsibility to ensure that students are provided a free, appropriate public education including appropriate and necessary services, accommodations, and modifications. Also, any action that would increase liability exposure to the district or its employees without the support of insurance coverage could be unreasonable to the district.” 

However, when the policy was adopted, the district formed a “Guest/Visitor Policy Advisory Committee,” perhaps to give cover for policy KM after parents — including Steinmetz — objected. The committee issued its report in November of this year.

That report, far from validating the ban, suggests that the district is failing to provide “appropriate” services.

The report admits that:

• ABA therapy is the most scientifically validated intervention for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). 
• ABA therapy provides medical amelioration prescribed by medical professionals to be delivered in a student’s natural environment, including the classroom setting, if necessary.
• ABA often has the biggest impact for students when applied across multiple settings.
• The number of hours prescribed for ABA contact differs based on each student’s needs.
• the ABA therapy for third-party agencies while working under the supervision of a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA).
• Classroom and in-clinic ABA are both important. State-of-the-art ABA therapy equals multiple settings, of which the classroom is one setting.
• ABA services currently offered by third-party providers create an opportunity for collaboration with school staff as well as participation in IEP meetings to monitor student progress.
• Reid maintains that the new policy does allow third party providers in — so long as they have a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the district.