Iep Case Studies

This case was the monumental because it set the legal precedents that no student with an IEP can be suspended more than 10 days without the violation being one of weapon, drug, or serious bodily harm. This decision further stated that schools cannot expel students that display behavior that is linked to their disability. There is still the process in place that the hearing officer or court can only make this determination, but the prevision is a great benefit to disable students, they can no longer be removed from learning institutions without just

Wally had been identified as a student with Emotional Behavior Disorders (EBD) upon enrolling to kindergarten. He has attended 7 schools throughout his educational career due to his behavioral issues as well as his family moving. During this time frame various strategies have been implemented to determine the most appropriate learning environment for Wally.

Under IDEA the law mandates the student to have an IEP team. The parent is encouraged to be a part of their child learning

In this mock IEP meeting, we examine John Grohman from Kelsey Elementary School. John is a 2nd grade student who has Asperger’s Syndrome. He is a student who has extreme behavioral problems. John’s parents are extremely concerned about his behavior at home and at school. In this mock IEP, we look at John from his parents, special education teacher, administrator, general education teacher, and evaluator; to get a better picture of what is needed to help John be successful.

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

Until that time, many states had laws that excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school. These included children who were blind, deaf and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded." Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational services. Having a disability does not automatically qualify a student for special education services under the IDEA. The disability must result in the student needing additional or different services to participate in school. For example, a child who is diagnosed autistic. Children with disabilities who qualify for special education are also automatically protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

None of § 1415’s other procedures show that there were procedural defects in CW’s IEP

On Monday, September 25th, I was invited to sit in as the general education teacher in an IEP team meeting. The meeting was held for a student with down syndrome, identified at birth, who qualified for services under the category of intellectually disabled. This student is in a self-contained classroom, therefore, his current teacher, served as the special education teacher for the purposes of this meeting. Meeting participants included: Mrs. Fields (ARC Advocate), Dr. Neiman (Main speech therapist, participated over the phone), Mrs. Bennett (LEA representative), Mrs. Diggs (ACS EC Director, as a precaution because the parents expressed concerns for the education of their child), Mrs. Sikes (General Education Teacher), Mrs. Bernard

EE107’s teachers referred EE107 to the Determination Team. EE107 was retained once in kindergarten and placed in a transition classroom for a portion of her 4th grade year. She currently receives math and reading interventions. However, she is not responding to the interventions based on progress monitoring data. Thus, the Determination Team has requested a comprehensive evaluation of EE107 to assist the team in determining whether or not she would qualify for assistance through the Exceptional Children’s program.

The California Superintendent of Public Instruction was the petitioner in this case. Honig was seeking permission from the court to remove students from the school setting who displayed violent behaviors without following the procedural safeguards outlined in the Education Handicapped Act (EHA). The EHA (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA) requires schools receiving federal funding to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities (Essex, 2012). Council for Honig was hoping the court would grant a “dangerousness exception” to the “stay put” rule. Thus, giving schools latitude in suspending and expelling students with disabilities who exhibit serious disruptive behavior. The respondents were two students from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) was identified as being emotionally disturbed and were suspended based on their persistent and aggressive behaviors. In both cases the students were suspended and/or recommended for expulsion by the school district without a hearing. The first respondent “John Doe” had been suspended multiple times for serious physical violence, such as choking a peer. The second respondent, “Jack Smith” schedule was reduced to half days due to his

After successfully completing his five first academic years in a public school setting, Jerry was diagnosed with several medical problems. The diagnoses were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and a conduct disorder (CD). Afterwards, the team that conducted Jerry’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) decided to place Jerry in a special education setting. The special education team decided that he would be considered successful if he achieve to follow instructions from his teachers 80% of the

During the 2012-2013. 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 school years, the Student passed the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. After reviewing all of the evidence, it was finally concluded that the Student did not need to receive special education services. The argument the Students parents were making was that ECISD did not evaluate the Student for an IDEA disability. However, the Respondent’s evaluation and application was done in agreement with the IDEA. Evidence also showed that the Student did receive educational benefits from the school’s regular education

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

IDEA requires the following: “(when) a student with disabilities has behavior problems, regardless of the student’s eligibility category, the IEP team should consider positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports—to address these problems” (Yell, 2016, p. 66). Refusal to attend school is a behavior that is impeding the student’s ability to learn. The administrator in this situation took the right actions by first reviewing the records for this student. The next step would be to schedule an IEP team meeting so that the team can come together to discuss the lack of attendance and possible ways to address this concern. The team needs to determine what the underlying cause for the behavior might be.

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)