Amy and Ray Sosa spent a year battling with Coppell ISD about the education and treatment of their teenage son with learning disabilities. Finally, they decided to enroll Alex, 14, in a private school.

Now, the Sosas are asking the school district to pay for their son's private education. The Sosas say that the district failed to follow Alex's individual education plan or provide the tools he needed to learn.

The Sosa case has become a public example of an emotional battle that takes place every day across the U.S.: cost-conscious school districts struggling to educate all children pitted against anxious parents who see themselves as the only true advocate for their special-needs child.

Alex has Asperger syndrome, a form of autism that makes social interaction difficult. He also suffers from bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and sensory integration disorder, which makes him hypersensitive to light, sound and noise.

The Coppell district "refused to address his disabilities," Mrs. Sosa said.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, requires school districts to provide a "free appropriate public education" to disabled students.

Courts have ruled that public schools, in some cases, must reimburse parents for special services and instruction provided by private schools and therapists.

Legal and special education experts say Mrs. Sosa faces an uphill fight in a system that rarely sides with parents. But the statistics aren't stopping her from pressing ahead.

At her request, Coppell ISD opened the formal hearing on her son's case to the public. Mrs. Sosa says the public "needs to understand the process and know what is going on."

"We are doing this for our child's rights and for all the parents and children in this district and other districts," Mrs. Sosa said recently in a statement e-mailed to other parents and the media. "We hope an open hearing will empower other parents and allow you to benefit from our experiences so we all become better advocates."

Nona Matthews, the attorney representing the district, said she could not comment specifically on the Sosa case.

The hearing in the district's Roy C. Brock Center wrapped up Wednesday. A decision is expected sometime in January. Attorneys on both sides of the special education debate say an open forum is rare.

"It's highly unusual," said Dallas attorney Myrna Silver, an expert in special education law. "Typically, parents want the whole process to be very confidential. They don't generally want it to be known that they're quote 'suing the school district.' "

The Sosas want Coppell ISD to pay for four years of private education for Alex at The St. Anthony School in Carrollton, which specializes in helping children with learning disabilities.

The Sosa case boils down to proving this: Did the school deny the child a free and appropriate public education, and is the private placement in St. Anthony appropriate for the child?

But what is considered "appropriate" is subjective.

"[School districts are] not required to maximize a child's education," said Jim Walsh, an Austin attorney whose firm represents school districts around the state. "They're required to provide what's appropriate. Nobody has a legal entitlement to every service that they [want]."

But other issues are involved, too.

Mrs. Sosa says fellow students continually bullied Alex in school, calling him names and telling him he smelled.

In one incident, she said, a student pushed Alex against a locker, and in another a student stabbed her son in the back with a pencil. The district's version of what happened differs. It says, for example, that a student "poked" Alex in the back.

In a letter to Mrs. Sosa, the district also states that "appropriate consequences were issued to all parties involved" and that measures to prevent future incidents were put in place.

Mrs. Sosa also said the district was not following her son's individual education plan or behavior intervention plan, both required under special education law.

"I asked for the child to be moved [to another school], but the district wouldn't do it," she said.

Through mediation, the district agreed to transfer him to Coppell Middle School West, but Mrs. Sosa said the district broke the terms of her son's education plan.

The combination of legal fees and private school tuition have added up for the Sosas. As a result, they have taken out a loan to consolidate their bills. They took out a second mortgage on their house and an $18,000 loan to cover the school tuition.

Mrs. Sosa, who works as an independent education consultant, says she has had to put her job on hold, and Mr. Sosa used vacation time to attend the hearing.

Hearing officers rarely rule in favor of the parents. And when they do, a district court can reverse the ruling.

That happened last month in a case involving Lago Vista Independent School District outside Austin.

The hearing officer ruled that Lago Vista should reimburse the parents of a child with learning disabilities for private education and related costs. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks overturned the decision.

"It's kind of like a lottery," said David Beinke, an Austin attorney and an expert in special education law. "So few parents win. It's kind of like climbing Mt. Everest – you may not get there but [Mrs. Sosa is] making an attempt."

Money – or lack of it – is part of the problem, attorneys say. Ms. Silver compares the special education law to No Child Left Behind. The federal government tells states to follow it but doesn't provide enough funding for it.

Other factors, Ms. Silver adds, include the shortage of qualified special education teachers, turnover in special education departments and school district administrations that would rather see their funds pay for something else like a new football stadium.

"Special education is at the bottom of the barrel," she said. "The solution really lies with individual administrations and teachers who want to do the right thing for special needs students."

Recent amendments to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act has given districts and parents more room to compromise, Mr. Walsh said. The biggest change is a requirement that parents and districts participate in a "resolution session" before a case goes to a due process hearing.

He said districts don't take hearings lightly.

"They only do that when they feel there's some significant principle at stake," Mr. Walsh said.

But Dorene J. Philpot, Mrs. Sosa's attorney, questions a district's decision to take it that far.

"As a taxpayer, you've got to wonder, do you win by taking something to hearing and lose?" she asked. "And say the family loses on all counts, is it really winning by spending $100,000 to spank them than if you spent $20,000 on private placement?"

In most cases, parents argue that the school district is not willing to provide the therapeutic services or style of instruction their children need to keep up in class.

Parents file a lot of complaints, but most cases are resolved before they go to the hearing stage. A small number of the hearings deal with placing a child in a private facility and parent requests that the school district reimburse them for the costs. Ultimately, only a fraction of the decisions favor the parents.

2005-06

Number of hearings filed: 277

Number of decisions issued: 40

Number of decisions involving private placement:* 3

Decisions in favor of the parent: 0

2006-07

Number of hearings filed: 329

Number of decisions issued: 50

Number of decisions involving private placement:* 3

Decisions in favor of the parent: 2

District court reversed hearing officer's decision in favor of school district: 1

*Private placement can include a private school or a residential treatment facility.

SOURCE: Texas Education Agency, Office of Legal Services