According to available records, JoeVaughn has been enrolled in special education classes since elementary school. Based on his Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), JoeVaughn has qualified for special education services for an Emotional Disturbance. His most recent school placement was as a 9th grade student at High Roads Academy in Washington, D.C. At High Roads, the respondent was receiving comprehensive support services including transportation to and from school, specialized instruction, an educational aide in the classroom, and individual counseling services. JoeVaughn has never skipped or repeated a grade. He reported “Good, honor roll grades” while in elementary school but endorsed numerous suspensions in middle school for disruptive …show more content…
His standard score is within the low average range for his grade. His mathematics reasoning ability is limited; math reasoning tasks above the grade 8 level will be quite difficult for him. JoeVaughn will likely require intensive instructional support and target interventions in math.”
A review of records indicates that JoeVaughn was evaluated on 11/12/14 by the Child Guidance Clinic of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia’s Family Court-Social Services Division. This report revealed JoeVaughn’s full scale IQ score to be 82, which fell into the Low Average range of intelligence. The test results also suggested that at the age of 15, he was performing at the age equivalency of a 9-year-old child in broad reading, math, and written expression. Many of his subtest scores suggest that he is performing at the level of a 7- or 8-year-old child across subjects. For example, he scored 64 in sentence writing fluency which places his performance at the level of an 8-year-old. Similarly, his number matrices subtest score was 61, reflecting a negligible relative proficiency at about the level of a 6-year, 8-month-old child. Based on his average level IQ and below grade level achievement scores, JoeVaughn
…show more content…
The Child Guidance Clinic evaluation also revealed diagnosis of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. Historically, he has been diagnosed with a host of mental health concerns including both mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and disorders of conduct. A description of JoeVaughn from the Child Guidance Clinic’s evaluation reads as
Currently, Keshawna is enrolled in school full-time, as a 9th grade student at East End Academy in Newport News, Virginia. She is there through the Virginia Independent Clinical Assessment Program (VICAP) process, and she is receiving day treatment services while there. In the last three months, Keshawna has some full day unexcused absences, and there has been intervention by school administration. Keshawna's performance at school is not promising; she is averaging C- or
Donavan has received five out-of-school suspensions and has received four in-school suspensions. Donavan is interested, but not involved in any school activities. There are no staff members at the school Donavan feels close to. Donavan has no special education status. Both Donavan and Ms. Sneed feel education is very important to being
The issues in this case study involve Bob Parrish, an seventh-grade student with defiant behavior as a background; Rebecca Philips, a special education teacher with six years of experience; and Mr. Parrish, Bob’s dad. Besides Bob’s defiant behavior, he has moved schools multiple time due to his mother trying to escape Mr. Parrish and has a history of being placed in a self-contained classroom to receive academic instructions. Bob lives with his grandparents and his dad in an unstructured environment. Mr. Parrish is very inpatient and tries to correct Bob’s behavior through acts of violence.
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
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
Intervention: CSP, MHS and Dnyshia discussed current events of her suspension till school resumed in 2016, texting nude pictures of self to unidentified males, 21 school referrals in school term, IEP meeting and the GAL got upset with the school officials. CSP redirected Dnyshia’s response of laughing and smiling when getting the facts about her school suspension. CSP and MHS praised the youth for telling the truth and willing to discuss the step that lead to the fright with ex-boyfriend. CSP reviewed and role-played positive ways of reacting or remove Dnyshia from possible risks of negative outcomes. CSP encouraged MHS to get more involved in Dnyshia education
Currently, Brian is enrolled in school full-time at Chesapeake Juvenile Services receiving 12th grade level services. He has been in detention since February 2017. In the last three months, Brian has attended school regularly and there has been an overall improvement in his behavior. Brian 's performance at school is good, averaging C or better. Brian 's general attitude toward education is positive; he believes there is a definite benefit to his education and believes the school environment is encouraging and supportive. Brian has a history of disciplinary problems. Prior to his current detainment, Brian has received two out-of-school suspensions, one in-school suspension and one expulsion; he was first expelled at age fifteen for his
Jonnie, a 10th grade African American male, was referred to me because he considering college as a next step in his education. He needs support in building his GPA and course mapping so that when he is ready to enter a comprehensive high school he is on track to complete graduation and college requirements. Working with Jonnie, the immediate goal is to have him pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Throughout his academic career, Jonnie has had an inordinate number of disciplinary infractions put against him. His high school transcripts reflect the behavior problems that have had an effect on his ability to perform well in school. Currently, Jonnie is in a small school setting in which his academic abilities are being shown and fostered. Jonnie does not seem to exhibit many deficits when it comes to social-emotional relationships, however, it is evident in his work, that there are some academic gaps that need to be supported and scaffolded for him. When it comes to material that tends to be difficult for Jonnie, he withdraws himself from the class. Further examination of Jonnie’s behavior is necessary to better support his academic abilities and achieving his goal of attending college a reality.
Early national period, permits monitorial schools, religious organization, and free school societies to fill the space before state systems came about. Laws were given for a vast amount of sovereignty to be delegated to local school boards while financial support largely depended on local property tax (Pulliam & Van, 2013). With these conditions, it was normal for districts authorities to maintain power and more control by the state. Pulliam & Van (2013) stated back in the early national period, Henry Bernard and Horace Mann constructed their personal state school system without seizing the policy making power of boards of education. During the World War II, the customs of local autonomy have caused conflict with state legislatures. Currently, state governments and departments of education have a more vigorous role in teachers’ certification, creating lists of appropriate course materials and even directing the curriculum (Pulliam & Van, 2013). Multiple states
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
In K.M v. Tustin Unified School District (2013), the plaintiffs were high school students with hearing disabilities and received services associated with special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This eligibility implied that they were eligible for free appropriate public education (FAPE). The plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to a word for word transcription service by their school districts under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs had requested their schools to provide communication access real-time translation to enable them understand their teachers and fellow students without undue strain. Their requests were denied by school districts but they were offered alternative accommodations. The plaintiffs had unsuccessfully challenged the decision to deny the service in state administrative proceedings. Their claims were that the denial violated IDEA and title II of the ADA.
However, the ECISD screened the Student for Dyslexia and according to Section 504, the Student was not eligible to receive special services. After the Student’s evaluation in 2013, it was shown that the Student matched the academic level of his/her peers and was at an average level. Later, the Respondent gave an opportunity to assess the Student with a Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) but the parents of the Student declined the request. There was eventually a FIE of the Student, the test results indicated that the student was at an average and above average level.
I am currently in my 11th year of teaching at Sun Valley High School. I have been very fortunate that we have not had many major legal issues at my school while I’ve worked here. Many of the issues that arise come from students with special education requirements. Most times it is due to a student with a low grade and the teachers not following the SDI’s to the full extent. The few major issues we’ve had in my school have dealing with drugs or violence have been associated with a student having an IEP. These students have manifestation hearings to determine if it was their disability that caused the behavior. I was slightly involved in one of these cases, and with the vague wording in their legal document; I was amazed at how the
Andy is a fourth grade student who spends the majority of his time in a self-contained class. He is classified under the category of ED and is diagnosed with ADHD. Academically, Andy is performing significantly below grade level in reading. He has difficulty is social situation and often demonstrates aggressive behavior. He has been suspended for this behavior several times since the start of the year, even though there is a behavior plan in place according to the school. Andy’s parents have expressed their concerns and requested a functional behavior assessment, and a positive support plan to be put in place. The school has requested an emergency IEP meeting to consider moving Andy to a self-contained classroom for the full day.
In-school suspension does not count as removal if the student can continue to progress in the general curriculum, receives the services described in the student’s IEP, and participates with non-disabled students to the same extent as in the student’s placement. If these provisions are met, then the in-school suspension does not count as a day. After 10 cumulative days, a change of placement might occur due to the manifestation determination hearing, which a school still must provide services. Finally, students with disabilities may not be expelled for the same length of time as a student without a disability. Instead, a student with disability is moved to an interim alterative educational setting for 45 school days for misconduct involving weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury. A hearing officer can, however, extend the number of days beyond 45(McKinney, 2012, p.