Denver, CO
ABA therapy in school: Some Denver families are still being told no despite state law billed as “a path to yes”
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters
Every day, Ileana Sadin picks up her 5-year-old son Julian from kindergarten in Denver and drives him to a therapy clinic. Julian has autism, and his pediatrician has prescribed 35 hours of applied behavior analysis, or ABA therapy, per week to help Julian communicate.
But Julian doesn’t get nearly that many hours of therapy. At most, he gets 10 a week after school.
Denver Public Schools has refused his parents’ request for a private ABA provider to work with Julian in his kindergarten classroom, even though the family’s private insurance would pay for it.
Without ABA therapy in school, Julian’s parents worry he is losing skills. Before he enrolled in public school, an ABA therapist helped Julian participate in lessons at his day care, his parents said. Julian learned the alphabet and could count to 20 in English and Spanish.
When Julian transitioned to public school, his parents were told, “‘He’s making progress. He can count to 10 now,’” Julian’s father, Joshua Kurdys, recalled. “He could count to 20 a year-and-a-half ago. That says something to me.”
A 2022 state law was intended to make it easier for students to get ABA therapy in schools. But ultimately it was watered down to require only that districts have a policy that addresses how a student with a prescription for “medically necessary services” receives those services in school.
Parents and advocates say that has led to an uneven experience for families across school districts and less support for students, some of whom end up quietly lost in the shuffle while others end up in a loop of frustration, explosive behavior, and suspension from school.
While DPS is following the letter of the law, parents and advocates allege, it’s not following the spirit. Advocate Meryl Duguay called DPS’s policy and process “a show to get to a no.”
Meredith Fatseas, the Denver district’s director of mental health services, said the district looks at each student’s case individually and that its process is “rooted in inclusive and equitable practices.”
“When requests come in, we are taking them seriously,” Fatseas said. “It’s not a rubber stamp.
“We are committed to the obligation of meeting students’ individual needs in the education setting, which is why we’ve taken a stance of owning this process,” she said.
Data shows DPS says no more often
ABA uses rewards to reinforce behavior. It’s often recommended for children with autism to help them communicate, interact with others, and manage frustration.
DPS’s policy says the decision of whether to allow an outside ABA therapist into the classroom is up to the team that develops a student’s individualized education program or IEP. An IEP lists goals for students with disabilities and the services the school district must provide.
If parents disagree with anything in the IEP, their recourse is to file a due process complaint with the state, which many families see as daunting and potentially costly.
Data obtained by Chalkbeat in an open records request shows that last school year, DPS, the largest school district in the state with 88,000 students, received 28 requests for ABA therapy in school and granted only three, or about 11%.
Other big Colorado districts said yes more often. Jeffco Public Schools, Douglas County School District and Cherry Creek School District granted all of the requests for ABA therapy they received last school year. Aurora Public Schools granted half the requests it received in the last three years.
Fatseas said Denver’s rate doesn’t take into account approvals made through a second, long-standing process that allows parents to request a private provider work with their child during non-instructional time only, such as art class or recess. The requests are meant to be for services that are not medically necessary.
Those types of requests are made at the school level, and the district doesn’t track how many are received or granted by individual school principals, Fatseas said.
Bill set out to find “a path to yes”
Families’ frustration drove the 2022 Colorado state law. Originally the bill, known as HB 22-1260, would have required districts to allow ABA in school.
“When parents approach schools with a prescription, they are often told no,” state Rep. Meg Froelich, who sponsored the bill, said at the first hearing in April 2022.
“We are here to find a path to yes,” said Froelich, a Democrat who represents Englewood, Sheridan, Cherry Hills Village and part of Denver.
But now, Froelich said, it’s clear that the law isn’t always working as intended.
“We’re a local control state, so the prevailing wisdom is you can’t tell school boards what to do,” Froelich said in an interview. “We tried to write (the bill) that the path can’t be, ‘We don’t do that here.’ But there are too many ways the school can essentially say no while appearing not to.”
At the first hearing on the 2022 bill, one parent told state lawmakers her son was suspended from his suburban school district 12 times in a four-month span for behavior that could have been addressed by ABA therapy. Another testified that her son’s school said she was welcome to pull him out of class to go to his ABA clinic but then held him back a grade for missing too much school.
The few parents who said their children had gotten ABA therapy in the classroom said it happened because of a lawsuit or a mistake.
Meanwhile, school officials said allowing outside ABA providers into classrooms could be a liability and would be disruptive and distracting to the student receiving the therapy and their classmates. ABA therapy could also interfere with other special education services, they said.
“We aren’t allowed to give up our services so an outside provider can come in to give their services,” said Lisa Humberd, then the executive director of special education for Widefield School District 3 and now head of the Consortium of Directors of Special Education.
Providers testified that’s not how ABA therapy works. It’s not a separate therapy delivered in an office, they said, but supports the student to participate in classroom lessons.
ABA therapy is controversial. Nationwide, some parents have accused ABA providers of being overzealous or even abusive to their children, and some autistic adults have said the premise of ABA therapy forces people with autism to conform to societal norms in a harmful way.
But the controversy didn’t seem to play a role in Colorado lawmakers’ decision. The objections of the school districts did. To appease them, Froelich amended her bill. Instead of requiring districts to allow medically necessary services in school, the bill required districts to have a policy.
“I think we will probably revisit this if parents are finding they can’t quite get what they need or the policy isn’t addressing certain circumstances,” Froelich told fellow lawmakers in 2022.
Two years later, Froelich is frustrated.
In her mind, IEP teams should not be making the decision about whether to allow ABA therapy providers into the classroom. She has asked the Colorado Attorney General’s Office to issue an opinion to that effect. A spokesperson said they’d received the request and are looking into it.
Froelich has also asked the Colorado Department of Education to issue new guidance. A spokesperson said the department is “working with districts and other stakeholders to review how the current guidance might need to be clarified or updated.”
In kindergarten and still without therapy services
Chalkbeat spoke with three families whose children have a prescription for ABA therapy. All three requested an outside ABA provider be allowed to serve their child in the classroom, at the expense of their private insurance. All three were denied by Denver Public Schools.
Two of the families did not want their names used in this story for fear of retaliation by the district.
All three families said they went through DPS’s process. As described by Fatseas, the district’s director of mental health services, the process involves an evaluation by a board certified behavior analyst, or BCBA, who works for the Denver school district.
The district’s BCBA interviews the student’s pediatrician and their outside ABA therapist. The BCBA also observes the child at school, reviews their records, and collaborates with other special education teachers and school-based providers to write a recommendation for the IEP team.
Fatseas said ABA theory is baked into the interventions that all Denver school-based mental health staff use with students, even if they’re not providing one-on-one ABA therapy. With requests for outside ABA providers to come into the classroom, Fatseas said the question the district tries to answer is whether the service is necessary for the student to make progress toward their IEP goals.
In Julian’s case, DPS said it wasn’t.
Julian is a sweet 5-year-old whose mother describes him as agreeable. He struggles with communication, social skills, and learning, but he doesn’t lash out in frustration.
Unlike some children with autism, Julian can speak. But his speech is mostly phrases he’s memorized. On a recent drive to his after-school therapy, Julian sat in his car seat with a banana and a chocolate milk, marveling at the trucks on the highway.
“UPS truck!” he said. “That’s a big one! Orange semi truck! That’s a big one!”
According to IEP documents provided to Chalkbeat by Julian’s parents, DPS rejected the family’s request for an outside ABA provider because Julian was making progress without one. But his parents wonder if Julian could be making more progress with help from an ABA therapist.
Advocates said it’s a common concern.
“The bar is so low, they’re not considering what a student is actually capable of and should be achieving,” said Duguay, who does not work with Julian’s family but has worked with several other families whose requests for ABA have been denied.
In IEP meetings, Julian’s parents pushed back. But so far, DPS has stuck to its denial.
“I don’t know how we can say with a straight face he doesn’t need ABA therapy,” Sadin, Julian’s mother, said in one IEP meeting, according to a recording provided to Chalkbeat. She was reacting to test scores that showed Julian was in the bottom first percentile for academic skills.
“He has such problems with communication, it’s not easy to elicit what he usually knows,” she said in the meeting. “Not to harp on the ABA, but this is what ABA is about.”
Melanie Asmar is the bureau chief for Chalkbeat Colorado. Contact Melanie at masmar@chalkbeat.org .
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Get more Colorado news by signing up for The Denver Post’s Mile High Roundup email newsletter.
Originally Published:
Getty
Peyton Watson #8 of the Denver Nuggets is a potential Lakers free-agent target.
The Los Angeles Lakers are still exploring means to improve their roster ahead of the upcoming season. Moves have been made already, but there are opportunities to add more talent around Luka Doncic.
One potential target for L.A. is Denver Nuggets star, Peyton Watson. In a proposed multi-team deal involving the Miami Heat and New Orleans Pelicans, the Lakers could land the high upside talent.
In the deal:
Both Watson and Jones have been linked with a move to L.A. this offseason, but no deal has been able to push forward. This proposal offers a chance to get both with one swing.
Lakers’ Outline for Acquiring Peyton Watson Through Trade
GettyDALLAS, TEXAS – JANUARY 14: Peyton Watson #8 of the Denver Nuggets handles the ball during a game against the Dallas Mavericks at American Airlines Center on January 14, 2026 in Dallas, Texas.
Watson, 23, is a restricted free agent, which makes any approach difficult. The Nuggets could match any offer to retain him and are reportedly planning to do so.
The 6-foot-8 star is coming off a breakout season in Mile High City, averaging 14.6 points, 4.9 rebounds, 2.1 assists and 1.1 blocks per game. He shot 49.1% from the field and 41.1% from three while starting 40 of his 54 appearances.
Watson’s camp is reportedly seeking north of $25 million per year which is unfavorable for the Nuggets at this point. Denver already has huge commitments to Nikola Jokic, Jamal Murray, Anthony Gordon and Christian Braun.
The Lakers can capitalize on the Nuggets’ need to move for pieces for flexibility and pitch a move for Watson. There would be adequate space to fit in the incoming star with the outgoings in this framework.
The Lakers can offer Watson a multi-year deal that doesn’t affect their flexibility. Vanderbilt’s outgoing deal is the most notable, which is why the Lakers have put him at the top of their moving list for now.
Watson’s Upside and Adding Herb Jones to the Roster
GettyLuka Doncic #77 of the Los Angeles Lakers passes the ball as he is pressured by Herbert Jones #2 and Jeremiah Fears #0 of the the New Orleans Pelicans during the second quarter of an 2025 Emirates NBA Cup game at Smoothie King Center on November 14, 2025 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Lakers would also get Jones out of this trade from the Pelicans. He is on a three-year, $68 million extension going through 2028-29 with a player option. His cap hit for 2026-27 sits at around $14.9 million.
With Watson and Jones, the Lakers would be bringing in roughly $38 million worth of salary, adding both Saddiq Rey for depth while sending out only about $26 million. This scenario would push L.A. well over its luxury limit but not into restrictive zones.
A potential lineup having Watson and Jones alongside Doncic, Austin Reaves and the newly acquired Walker Kessler, is positioned to be a strong core.
The real hurdle is getting Denver to move on from Watson. The franchise is committed to keeping him, even if it means giving up one of their more seasoned stars. They did activate a qualifying offer, making him restricted and they intend to match offers. Although a sign-and-trade is not impossible and the Lakers can work with that.
Adel Ahmad Adel is a writer with over five years of experience covering the NBA. His work has appeared on various media platforms, both national and local. More about Adel Ahmad
Denver, CO
One tree at a time: Denver nonprofit works to close shade gap as heat dome threatens neighborhoods
DENVER — Some Denver neighborhoods are far more vulnerable to this weekend’s incoming heat dome than others — and the difference comes down to trees.
The Valverde neighborhood on the city’s west side has about 9% canopy cover, leaving residents with little shade as temperatures climb toward triple digits.
▶️ WATCH: Denver7’s Claire Lavezzorio learns more about The Park People and how it is helping neighborhoods in Denver.
One tree at a time: Denver nonprofit works to close shade gap as heat dome threatens neighborhoods
Kim Yuan-Farrell, executive director of The Park People, a nonprofit that plants trees in underserved neighborhoods, said the disparity across Denver is stark.
“We have some neighborhoods that have wonderful canopy cover, like 20 to 30% of those neighborhoods are forested. Then a number of our neighborhoods have really low canopy cover, between four or 8% where it’s just significantly less,” Yuan-Farrell said.
Denver7
The Park People identified 28 neighborhoods in need of more tree cover, including Westwood, Globeville and Northeast Park Hill.
Trees can cool an area by 15 to 20 degrees, making a significant difference.
The National Weather Service (NWS) warned the heat dome could last through next weekend.
“The exceptional thing about this is how long it will last,” said NWS meteorologist Russell Danielson. “If you do have trees to take shelter under, it does actually cool down the temperature a decent amount.”
Yuan-Farrell said trees are more than a comfort — they are a critical piece of urban infrastructure.
Denver7
“We really consider it a really essential element of green infrastructure, a real nature-based solution to a lot of these really serious local environmental problems,” Yuan-Farrell said.
In the map below, explore Denver’s libraries and rec centers that welcome the public in from the heat during business hours.
When asked whether Denver has a long road ahead, she did not hesitate.
“We have a lot of work ahead of us,” Yuan-Farrell said. “And we really need our whole community to get involved in that.”
The Park People plant anywhere from 1,200 to 2,000 trees a year. You can apply for one in your yard. Planting is set to begin in September.
Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Claire Lavezzorio
Denver7’s Claire Lavezzorio covers topics that have an impact across Colorado. If you’d like to get in touch with Claire, fill out the form below to send her an email.
To the well-trained eye, Denver figured to be one of the epicenters of this NBA offseason.
With two starters due for a combined $25.8 million salary increase, and with a potential rising star on the bench determined to land a lucrative contract extension, something had to give. The Nuggets were about to get too expensive for owner Stan Kroenke to stomach. Especially after their debacle of a playoff run, which ended before it could begin.
This was the prevailing sentiment for two months leading up to free agency. Almost all Nuggets-related chatter, both inside and outside Ball Arena, was about which player(s) they would sacrifice in a trade. Team president Josh Kroenke poured jet fuel on the rumor mill when he declared in May that “everything is on the table” except trading three-time MVP center Nikola Jokic.
Another high-ranking official in the Kroenke sports empire, Kevin Demoff, had hinted months earlier that Denver’s inclination might be to avoid the luxury tax entirely next season as to avoid paying the NBA’s punitive “repeater tax” rates. That was long before the Nuggets revealed to their power brokers that they were nowhere close to championship-worthy.
So, uh, what’s going on in Denver?
More than a week since the league’s free agency period began, most teams have completed their offseason business. The Nuggets have been puzzlingly idle. A few highlights so far: Tim Hardaway Jr. leaving for Miami as expected, Jonas Valanciunas getting waived for salary cap relief as expected, Marvin Bagley III and Tyus Jones signing one-year deals.
Going all-in or playing it conservatively?
Something doesn’t add up. As in, it adds up to a sum that continues to leave most NBA observers skeptical. Denver is leaving everyone guessing right now, even other teams.
Should fans be frustrated by the lack of action? Encouraged by it? Or is everything simply on hold?
There are two sides to this to unpack: the financial and basketball perspectives. They’re obviously intertwined, but when trying to make sense of this situation, it’s best to start with the financial side, because that was an obstacle that seemed to be motivating Denver’s roster decisions even before the on-court problems that emerged against Minnesota.
Before last season, the Nuggets were choosing between two extension-eligible 2022 draftees who had one year remaining on their rookie contracts: Christian Braun and Peyton Watson. They chose Braun, the more proven player at that point, an efficient 15-point-per-game starter the previous season, and a strong (if flawed) defender. They signed him to a five-year deal that would go into effect in 2026. They felt comfortable taking Watson to restricted free agency and maybe even losing him. Three years into his career, he seemed to be developing into a solid 3-and-D bench player, and maybe not much more than that.
The Nuggets were looking ahead to their 2026-27 payroll and didn’t want to commit large chunks of money to both players. Watson told The Denver Post in October: “From what I understand, it was just a financial business decision. Obviously, with the new CBA and the second apron, things of that nature, they wanted to stay out of that.”
Braun went on to have an injury-riddled season, the worst of his career. Watson had the best season of his career, particularly by showcasing his off-the-dribble ability when Jokic was hurt in January.
And so the Nuggets knew they would be entering the 2026 offseason with six starter-level players whose combined salary would result in a roster payroll above all three tax thresholds: the luxury tax ($200.4 million), first apron ($209 million) and second apron ($221.7 million). They wanted to keep Watson, recognizing the importance of his two-way talent and athleticism. They signaled as much to other teams.
If their previous actions had already indicated they were prepared to sacrifice him to stay under the second apron, then changing course and keeping him would surely mean sacrificing someone else.
This was the foundational logic that led people around the NBA to believe they were almost guaranteed to trade a starter. An oversimplification of the salary cap math looked like this: Lose one of your six starter-level players to get under the second apron, or lose two to duck the tax entirely. Perhaps other creative ways to shed salary would emerge, but this was the basic state of the union. Jon Wallace and Ben Tenzer would be tasked with threading the needle between cutting payroll and improving the roster.
From this perspective, the fact that Denver has not traded any of the six starter-level players yet can ironically be interpreted as an aggressive stance, not a conservative one. The moves that were expected to have happened by now would’ve been motivated primarily by money, not purely by basketball. Could it be that the Kroenkes are going all-in to chase a second championship? Suddenly, in the last few days, there’s been reporting from national media outlets such as The Athletic that “Denver’s ownership has not given its front office a mandate to cut costs.” The Post has been told similarly.
But that didn’t seem to be the case three weeks ago when the Nuggets were actively exploring the trade market for Braun and Cam Johnson, as The Post and other outlets reported.
What can it mean? Maybe there’s been a change of heart, and an executive decision has been made to spend lavishly. Maybe it’s connected to the team’s pursuit of LeBron James in free agency (how do you even begin to pitch him on coming to Denver if you’re not willing to pay up?), or maybe it’s a reaction to Jokic’s decision to wait one more year to sign a new extension. As direct as he was in publicly stating his plan to sign next summer, maybe the pressure of him entering the last guaranteed season of his current contract scared the Nuggets straight.
Maybe this is an earnest, full-throttle statement of championship intent.
Or maybe the abrupt timing of this leakage is a little too convenient.
Gauging the Watson market
The Nuggets have multiple reasons to want the rest of the NBA to believe they’re working with a blank check right now. One of those reasons: Watson.
Negotiations have clearly not gone smoothly. The line of demarcation is $25 million. That’s Braun’s average annual value on his new contract — the deal Denver prioritized over Watson — and now it’s the number Watson’s camp can fixate on. His side can point to last season and claim that going forward, he is worth the same amount or more. The Nuggets can point to the previous three years and say Braun’s overall body of work is better so far. As this is happening, another team is reportedly lingering, with a desire to poach Watson. The Clippers reside in his hometown, and they’ve already made moves this summer to get younger and clear their books.
Watson is a restricted free agent, meaning the Clippers must extend him an offer sheet, the terms of which Denver can match to retain him. Offer-sheeting a player can be risky because it ties down your cap until the situation is resolved, with no guarantee that you will successfully land the player you’re targeting. The Nuggets are saying behind the scenes that they’re prepared to match any offer sheet. Basically, they’re trying to scare off LA (and any other suitor) by indicating the offer sheet would be a waste of time, and the only real way to get Watson from them is to execute a sign-and-trade, sending Denver other assets in exchange for the right to sign the RFA. Utah just did this with Walker Kessler, who ended up with the Lakers via sign-and-trade. How can you bolster your leverage in a situation like this? By signaling publicly that you’re willing to pay an exorbitant payroll and tax bill to keep Watson and everyone else.
This also sends a message that you aren’t desperate to trade a starter (or two) to keep Watson — that you’re more than happy to hold on to Johnson, Braun, Aaron Gordon, or Jamal Murray if the offer isn’t strong enough.
If there is a spending mandate, then other teams might look to take advantage with low-ball trade offers.
So maybe the lack of a spending mandate could turn out to be a bluff for leverage. Or maybe it’s a real edict, a genuine commitment to competitiveness at all costs. There’s almost no way to know for sure until the Nuggets take an action to back up their words. For now, inaction has the appearance of aggression, as Denver attempts to feel out the market.
Certainly, it seems like the key domino will be how the Watson dilemma works itself out — either in the form of a contract extension, or an unmatched offer sheet, or a sign-and-trade, or a begrudgingly accepted qualifying offer ($6.5 million).
ESPN front office expert Bobby Marks (a former NBA executive) projected this week that if the Nuggets retain Watson at a $25 million cap hit and don’t trade any starters, their luxury tax bill next season would exceed $170 million — an almost unprecedented amount that includes second apron and repeater tax penalties. That’s in addition to what the raw roster payroll would be.
Between player salaries and taxes, it would be a $400 million team.
Which finally brings us to the basketball perspective on Denver’s offseason holding pattern. It would be one thing to pay that much if the Nuggets had just lost the NBA Finals in a tight six-game series with their current roster — if they knew for a fact that a championship was barely out of reach last season.
But the Nuggets didn’t make the Finals. They didn’t win a single playoff series. They lost in the first round to an injured opponent. They weren’t close.
Fans of an NBA team obviously have no obligation to care about the dent in a billionaire owner’s wallet. But it’s also reasonable enough for Nuggets fans to want change this offseason, independent of the financial complications. There’s a fair case to be made that Denver should be pursuing trades purely based on basketball, even if the Kroenkes have decided they’re willing to spend like few owners have ever spent. Perimeter defense, shot creation depth, downhill quickness and frontcourt physicality are all visibly lacking.
It’s just that the reason fans want change might not be exactly aligned with the reason this ownership group would want change.
It’s difficult to imagine the Nuggets feeling satisfied with the results of the last three seasons enough to truly run it back with the same top six players and less depth.
Then consider that those six players are aging. Then consider that the cost of those six players is multiplying.
That’s more than enough evidence to leave you wondering if Denver’s silence is misleading.
Want more Nuggets news? Sign up for the Nuggets Insider to get all our NBA analysis.
-
Los Angeles, Ca39 minutes agoNew details emerge in fatal stabbing of boy in El Monte
-
Detroit, MI1 hour ago1 dead, 1 injured after two-vehicle crash at Collingwood and Belleterre in Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour ago4 arrested, 3 cited after brawl following Giants vs. Rockies game at Oracle Park
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoMark Cuban takes legal action against Dallas Mavericks ownership over potential new arena deal
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoSouth Florida Dirt: A timeline of the Vacchi vs. Stern legal battle
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoTall Ships begin historic Boston parade of sails
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoLakers Proposed to Land Peyton Watson in Massive 9-Player Blockbuster Trade
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoCyclists fill backroads for annual summer Seattle-to-Portland ride
