Rhett Observation

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 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.

“The Petitioner’s view: First, to be entitled to related services, a child must be handicapped so as to require special education. In the absence of a handicap that requires special education, the need for what otherwise might qualify as a related service does not create an obligation under the Act. Second, only those services necessary to aid a handicapped child to benefit from special education must be provided, regardless how easily a school nurse or layperson could furnish them. Third, the regulations state that school nursing services must be provided only if they can be performed by a nurse of other qualified person, not if they must be performed by a physician (Eric).”

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

Sumter County School District 17 is a public school district in South Carolina. T.H. is a student who qualifies for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Sumter County School is appealing the decision of the lower district court, who found that the school district did not provide TH with a Free Appropriate Public Education. The school is also appealing the district court’s findings, which verified that T.H’.s current placement at home was appropriate. The school argues that the home placement of T.H. was not the Least Restrictive Environment. The school district’s appeal further contends that they at least in part provided a FAPE for T.H. because he was making some educational gains during the time in question even though the school was not providing the amount of service indicated in T.H.’s Individualized Education Plan. The school also asserts that they remedied internal problems and were able to provide the full range of time and services require through T.H.’s IEP.

A parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision by a school district regarding a change in educational placement of the child based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, or who disagrees with a manifestation determination made by the district, may request and is entitled to receive an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).)

Wright and Wright review the case of Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U. S. 7, 114 S. CT. 361, (1993) among others. In the case of Shannon Carter, which a landmark decision was issued by the Supreme Court. This cause involved the school system defaulting on their "obligation to provide a free appropriate education to Shannon Carter, a child with learning disabilities and an Attention Deficit Disorder." (Wright and Wright, 2012, p.1) This case involved the school, while developing an IEP for Shannon in the tenth grade, refusing to provide the student "with a more

Corpus Christi Independent School District, 1995 the attendees were, John E. Buser, Jr. (an autistic twenty-nine-year-old-man), John E Buser, Sr., Virginia Buser, and the Corpus Christi ISD personnel (Shirley Selz, Gary Thomasson, Hall and Marks). From 1985-86 school year, John Jr.’s parents participated in ARD and IEPs committee meetings for students with disabilities. The IEPs are important and critical to the parent participation in provide parents with opportunities to engage in discussion about their child and offer their opinion for recommendations (Lecture 5). The parents disagreed and agreed in the meetings with the proposed IEPs but in April of 1986 the participated in an ARD meeting where they did not agree with the ARD committee’s recommendations for their son. This was then brought to

The defendant, Katherine D. at the time was a seven-year old girl who suffered from cystic fibrosis and tracheomalacia. Katherine’s condition required her to wear a tracheotomy tube. The Department of Education determined Katherine was eligible for special education services under Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The Department of Education determined that the medical services Katherine required could not be met at a public school and composed an IEP that proposed a homebound education program consisting of speech therapy and parental counseling. Katherine’s parent declined the IEP, initiated a due process hearing, and placed her in private school. The hearing officer determined that the Department of Education offer of a homebound

R/s yesterday Jakeem was very upset and aggressive about returning home to his father. R/s Jakeem stated that he wants to live with his sister. R/s on February 18th, Jakeem was admitted for suicidal ideation. R/s Jakeem reported to his school’s counselor that he wanted to kill himself. R/s Jakeem had a plan to overdose. R/s according to Jakeem, the abuse has been occurring for two years. R/s Jakeem’s therapist is Kesha T. at Pee Dee Mental Health. R/s Jakeem is quiet and withdrawn, so his behavior yesterday was very shocking.

There have been complaints about the process for prior authorization and how frequently it had to be obtained by local school districts as they seek to provide services. On February 14, 2013 the US Department of Education published final regulations bringing changes to local educational agency (“LEA”) obligations with respect to notifying parents of their rights and obtaining parental consent under 34 C.F.R. Section 300.154(d)(2)(iv) of the Part B regulations implementing IDEA. The intent of the change was to ensure that parents/legal guardians are informed of their legal protections and to reduce unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on LEAs. All LEAs choosing to use Medicaid/public benefits to pay for special education services. The change in regulations is a direct response to concerns from LEAs that requiring parental consent each time the LEA sought to access Medicaid benefits was costly and burdensome. The DOE reduced the requirement by allowing LEAs to obtain a one-time only written consent, followed by annual notifications. The consent must include language the parents/legal guardians understand and agree the public agency may access the student’s Medicaid/public benefits or insurance to pay for services offered in the

I am really concerned about Iva Carpenter due to his lack of retention of information. I opened up an Intervention for Reading in Aspen for him and noticed that on 4-22-12 the team at Walker Jones attempted to test him for special education when he was in ECE. His mother subsequently pulled him from school at the end of the school year. Presently he has tested as RB on the DIbels/TRC for the BOY benchmark and has not made much growth or retained any information taught in sessions. I have attempted to call and email his mother on September 7, 2016 and September 14, 2016. I was able to piece together his background and discovered that he was supposed to be tested again at his charter school but his mother moved

Please be advised that it is imperative that you meet with your Resource Coordinator for further advice so that you do not jeopardize losing services through the Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) and

Rachael has significant intellectual disabilities as well as several mental health diagnoses. I have completed an application for services through the Department of Mental Health (DMH) which will provide additional in home services and supports to Rachael. Unfortunately the DMH application will not be considered until Neuropsychological testing is completed.

In regards to educational decision-making, the mother reported that Ethan attended Mazel Day School when he was two years old. She indicated that it was a full day program. The teacher recommended services and early intervention. She indicated that Ethan was evaluated and determined to need special services as part of the early intervention program. He was given occupational therapy, speech therapy and counseling. He was subsequently placed in special education. Services were provided at the home, she indicated that she present for all sessions. The father met the speech and occupational therapist once. He did not inquire to learn skills needed to help the child. The mother reported that he was not involved.