Individualized Education Case

The CEC Ethical Principles for Special Education Professionals are just making sure that the student’s best interest is put first in a safe and regulated way. The principles are to make sure special education teachers are held to a high standard when teaching students with disabilities. The three principles that stood out to me the most were principle #1, principle #3, and principle #8. I think all the principles were important and should be upheld by special education teachers.

Federal court case, David DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants, involves the maltreatment of a disabled child in the state of Ohio. Participants of this case include plaintiffs’, David and Mary Doe (parents of disabled child), John Doe (disabled child) and defendant Big Walnut School District Board of Education (school board). John Doe has been diagnosed with Cognitive disability as a result he is required to have an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"). Due to ongoing “below average general intellectual functioning, self-direction, and communication deficits” listed within his IEP from May 24, 2007, John was placed in a Resource Room at Big Walnut Middle School to assist in the advancement of his education. There were reports of inappropriate behavior involving John Doe’s interactions and encounters with other students, which Principal House was made aware of by the facilitators. John Doe expressed his constant torment of victimization with

In 1991 the Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This law was passed to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. It requires that each child with a disability “have access to the program best suited to that child’s special needs which is as close as possible to a normal child’s educational program” (Martin, 1978). The Individualized education program (IEP) was developed to help provide a written record of students’ needs and procedures for each child that receives special education services. The IEP will list all the services to be provided, the student's performance level, academic performance, and

My response to this DQ is a situation that actually happened at the school I work at. At that time our district used a Co-op to provide Special education services such as speech, physical, and occupational services. After the speech pathologist we had for years moved out of state, a replacement was hired to take her case load. In the classroom I worked in at the time only had one student in need of a speech pathologist, but there were other students in the building she would see also. After a few week we noticed the speech pathologist was not coming to work with our student. The teacher emailed her and was told she had been in meetings and would see us soon. After about two more weeks of not showing up, it was questioned again and the principal looked into it.

“I would just like to call to the Court’s attention what the realities of that situation are, and I think I can speak with some authority because for the last nine years, my fifteen-year-old- daughter has been denied access to public education…” were the words of Leonard Kalish, a father from the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), speaking about his daughter not being able to attain a public education (Kemerer and Sansom, 2005). He continues by stating, “…and as a result of which we have had her in private schools…we have spent approximately forty thousand dollars…” (p. 293). Like Mr. Kalish, many parents have gone in front of the courts to fight for their child’s right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and receive financial compensation, like the parents of Jeremy Wartenberg, from Wartenberg v. Capistrano Unified School District (1995) (West Law, 1995). However, before discussing the Wartenberg’s case, it is key to look back on special education and how it has evolved over time.

3)a.If your child is currently receiving special education services, you have the right to revoke your consent for such services at any timeE.Parent Participation in Meetings (pg. 4)a.You must be afforded to the opportunity to participate in meetings regarding theidentification of your childF.Evaluation Procedures (pg. 5)a.The school district must use a variety of evaluation tools and strategies when conducting an evaluation of your childi.Initial evaluation ii.Independent educational evaluation G.Private School Placements (pg. 6)a.Private school placements when FAPE is NOT in an issue b.Private school placements when FAPE IS an issue H.Discipline of students with disabilities (pg. 7)a.Short term removals (less than 10 days)b.Long term removals (more than 10 days)c.Manifestation determination review d.Expedited Due Processe.Interim Alternative Educational

It is also vital to keep good behavioral documentation to show the intensity and frequency of behavior incidents, the use of positive behavioral supports, and other teacher interventions if an IEP meeting is needed to alter placement. Teachers can also use documentation to prove their use of positive behavior supports and BIP techniques. Our district’s School Psychologist does Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) to assist in developing a BIP frequently. We have a student who has been exhibiting an increase in maladaptive behavior and the mother requested a FBA to form a BIP because she believed it would further protect her son from disciplinary action. Under this statute, she was correct. Statutes such as IDEA (2004) and TEC § 37.007 can be used to proactively protect students and provide them with the means to be as successful as possible. They can also be used by the courts to hold up rulings as in the case of Honig v. Doe (1988). Both IDEA and TEC §37.007 affect school districts on a daily basis and provide administrators, counselors, and teachers, the legal framework and protocol to use when making the best decisions for students, protecting students and families,

The Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services (bureau) received a state complaint from Ms. Kim Satterfield on September 15, 2016, alleging that the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (FSDB) violated federal and state laws relating to the education of students with disabilities. Specifically, the allegation is whether the FSDB implemented a policy that would not adhere to the student’s individual educational plan (IEP) and not support the student’s preferred language and means of communication.

Individualized education programs are a key component in special education. An IEP lays out the goals and methods needed for helping special education students reach their potential. These legal documents insure that all students are getting the resources they need in an education setting. Brewer and Diliberto use their article to explain a family’s experience with the IEP process and then offer tips to the reader to make their IEP meetings more successful. Brewer and Diliberto begin by telling the story of a kindergarten boy with behavioral issues. The article states, “At the beginning of the Sam’s kindergarten year, his teacher started sharing concerns about his behavior with Ms. Payton. According to his teacher, Sam was not able to sit still and was eating erasers” (Brewer and Diliberto,

On August 8, 2012, the Dryden Central School District held a CSE meeting to discuss the student’s transition and current educational needs. At this meeting it was determined that the student would continue on the same educational program, be informally placed in a classroom with a special education teacher and extra adult support, and that transportation would be modified to a regular education bus with a bus aide as they stated they did not have any special education busses available for him at this time. It should be noted that this was the first meeting the Parent had ever attended, or been invited to attend, with the Dryden Central School District, and yet the meeting notice states; “Previously you have received a Procedural Safeguards Notice that explains your rights regarding the special education process.” However, this could not possible be true since this was the very first meeting the Parent ever attended and these procedural safeguards were not provided to her at any time during the meeting. At this meeting it was also determined that the student would need to be re-evaluated by May 18, 2013, in the following areas; Cognitive, Social/Emotional, Speech and Language and

Child Find and Zero Reject. Under IDEA’s “child find” mandate, states are required to identify, locate, and evaluate all resident children with disabilities (including those who are homeless, limited English proficient, or wards of the state), regardless of the severity of their disability or whether they attend public or private schools. The mandate to serve all students with disabilities is commonly referred to as “zero reject.” Although federal law requires that children with disabilities be identified, it does not dictate how this is to occur. Nevertheless, courts give deference to districts when their identification efforts are substantial, in good faith, and ultimately effective. Consequently, state procedures vary widely and

Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requires states to provide free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for every child regardless of disability. This federal law was the first to clearly define the rights of disabled children to receive special education services if their disability affects their educational performance. A parent of a special education student also has basic rights under IDEA including the right to have their child evaluated by the school district and to be included when the school district meets about the child or makes decisions about his or her education. If a child is identified as in need of special education

All the ethical principles stated on “Council for Exceptional Children,” play a vital role in the special education field. I chose the three ethical principles that are most important to me, i.e. the essential ethical principle that any educator must have in order to serve a special needs student and their families. Principle number five states that, “developing relationships with families based on mutual respect and actively involving families and individuals with exceptionalities in educational decision making;” I truly believe that, effective communication between educators and families of special needs students is the key for success; not only for the educator, but also, for the student. My daughter has an IEP and, it took me and my family a few years to fully understand the system and also, understand what kind of learning disability she has. There was no support and effective communication between the school and our family, hence, the process was extremely hard for me and especially, for my daughter. When I left my job about 3 years ago and decided to return to school, my biggest motto was to receive my degree and eventually, be an asset to families and their special needs child.

Our country’s Legislative system has set many laws in place to protect the educational rights of all students, which allows for students to have a greater opportunity for educational success with funding levels varying between the states. Hooper and Umansky’s book, Young Children with Special Needs, states that the majority of early childhood intervention programs began under the "umbrella of Maternal and Child Health (MCH),” which was put into place in 1935 in accordance with the Social Security Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are two programs stemming from this historical piece of legislation. The Americans with Disabilities Act was an anti-discrimination law that allowed for more students to have access to certain facilities and resources giving them a better chance to succeed in their education. IDEA made it mandatory for the state to provide special education service programs for children between the ages of three and five. The parents with children who are included in IDEA typically receive grants to help them fund their child's education. Another piece of legislation that is widely utilized in classrooms today is the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). This plan develops a plan of action for the family with children that receive special education services and allows the information to further assist the child beyond school grounds. In use today is the Affordable Care Act (2012) that allowed for programs to be funded that look to prevent and care for children

Provide Assistance with children who have an IEP It is understood that when a parent is worried or concerned for their Child’s academic performance they contact the school to set up a meeting with the school's child study team. A child study team consists of a psychologist, a learning disabilities consultant and social worker. From that point on they will discuss the needs that would be better suited for the child’s academic performance. For instance, the social worker along with the child study team must follow certain guidelines set by law and must be included in every Child’s IEP. For this reason it must state the Child’s performance in school during the present term, it must also include educational goals, including the support and services that the school will provide to help each student meet these goals, it also includes modifications and the accommodations to help with their progress, accommodations when taking standardized tests, and a report of how and when the school will measure the child’s progress toward annual goals, and the transition planning that prepares for life after high school. (Stanberry, 2017)