Special Education Case Essay

Daniel RR was a six years old boy with down syndrome. He was enrolled in El Paso Independent School District. In the 1985 to 1986 school year, Daniel had attended a half-day early childhood program for special education students. Going into the next school year, Daniel’s parents asked if he could be placed into a general education pre-kindergarten classroom. Daniel was permitted to have half day in regular classroom and another half of the day in special education classroom. At the beginning, it seemed not to be the best situation for Daniel, teachers and classmates. His ability required him to get many accommodations and individual attention, and the teacher could not modify curriculum to meet Daniel’s needs without changing it completely. The school team decided to place him back to special education only classroom. But he could get lunch at school cafeteria with other students while his mother was there to supervise. He was also permitted to stay with students without disabilities at recess time. Daniel’s parents were unhappy about the school’s decision. They wanted him to spend more time with students in general education classroom. The school states that his attendance in general education

Michael Panico was a boy with who was identified while in first grade as having a specific learning disability. He then qualified for special education and related transportation. Now in third grade Michael’s school, Memorial School in Burlington, Massachesetts only goes to the third grade then they go to another school. Because of this transition services had to be in place as well as an IEP. Michael had a learning disability but was above average or even at times considered superior intelligence. Memorial School recommended Michael be placed in a school in another town that would be very structured because the town/school believed Michael’s disability was emotional whereas his parents said it was neurological. His parents did not like the IEP presented or the recommended placement for Michael at Pine Glen School and Michael’s father wanted a review and he also rejected the new IEP. After reading the case I would have to agree with the father knowing my son would not be in the proper placement. The Massachusetts Department of Education Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) did the review. The hearing did not take place at this time but mediation did. However the mediation did not work but in the meantime Michael’s parents had him tested at Massachusetts General Hospital where they found him to have a severe learning disorder and emotional difficulties were considered secondary. Michael had perceptual difficulties and it was determined and they recommended a specialized

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

Summary judgment for defendant-school district in an action in which plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by denying plaintiff-minor a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in his least restrictive environment (LRE) is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the LRE requirement of IDEA applies to extended school year placements as it does to regular school‐year placements; 2) the district court erred in determining that defendant met the LRE requirement when it offered plaintiff-minor

The very first to court verdict that advised there was a boundary to the resources that exceptional children can anticipate but they suggested that children with disabilities deserve more than an optimum education. Zirkel (2008) further argued that the court decision such case interpret the meaning of FAPE. He mentioned the initial purpose of the act was to give accessibility to public school and special education specifically, the connotation of FAPE was mainly technical (Zirkel, 2008). The court, however, further held that the substantive standard was that the IEP be fairly calculated to allow the child to obtain educational benefits (Zirkel, 2008); in reaching this substantive standard, the court overruled the higher standards of equal opportunity, self-sufficiency, and maximization. Furthermore, most of the lower courts were instructed to apply this standard with regard to school

This week’s readings discussed consequences for special education students. It was very interesting to see the different court case rulings for each case. Teachers, administrators and parents need to make sure they have everything accurate when taking a case like many of these to court. In this paper I will discuss the five key points in the articles and readings stood out to me the most, how and if my beliefs changed or were altered, and how I might apply the content to the classroom and instruction.

IDEA 2004 defines FAPE as services that are provided at public expense, that the education meet educational standards, is appropriate for the child and conforms with the IEP (Murdick, 2014). In several cases judges have ruled on the bases of free and appropriate public education for all children. In Timothy(v) Rochester N.H. School District (1989) the judged ruled in favor of Timothy, as he stressed IDEA empathized “all handicapped”. In the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (v) Rowley the judged ruled in favor of an appropriate

In 2004 the case of Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education was coming to a close after reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. Within this essay, detailed examination of this case, along with issues that developed the case, disagreement points, parties involved, and final outcome will be explored. This case was initiated in 1999 and reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Individuals with Disabilities Act has given parents and caregivers to student’s unparalleled

All parents and/or guardians are awarded due process in the United States court system. IDEA gives parents the opportunity for a child with a disability the rights to examine their personal records, participate in meetings such as, IEPs and ARDs with the respect to the identification, evaluation, and education of the child’s placement and also free public education (Osbourne & Russo). “Although most of the due process rights in the IDEA are for the benefit of children, the Supreme Court ruled that parents have rights of their own independent of those of their children” (Osbourne & Russo, p. 96). In this paper it will analyze the court case of Buser v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 1995; the parties involved, issues brought to court, disagreements, how and when the case was adjudicated, final outcomes, and disagree or agree with the case.

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.

Over the past six years, I have had the opportunity to work as a special education instructional assistant at FDR Elementary School. FDR Elementary is located in the Lawndale Elementary School District, which is in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County. I am currently enrolled in the Early Childhood Special Education Program and in the future I would like to pursue a teaching position in a pre-school classroom teaching special needs children. The environment that I currently work in is one predominantly made up of a population of approximately 612 students in which 336 of them (54.9%) have been classified as English language learners (California Department of Education Data Quest, 2016-2017). These high statistics have put me in many situations

Artifact number four will review a scenario in which a seasoned high school principal refuses a disabled student education due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school might not be the best placement for Jonathan. The topics discussed all pertain to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Cedar Rapids v Garret, Board of Education v Holland, and Timothy v Rochester. The facts that will be reviewed in this information will be discussed which could be used to defend Young’s decision, but make sure that Jonathan’s rights are not being stepped on.

The most important section in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is section 1400, which describes the findings and purpose of the law. Even though the purpose of the law is to provide services and protect their rights, this law does not automatically guarantee all children with a disability eligibility for services under the law. There is more than one legal definition and they can still be very vague and confusing. To be eligible a child must have a disability that affects educational performance and needs special education and related services. The child must meet both criteria to be eligible for a free appropriate public education. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) means special education and related services that are provided at public expense, meet the state standards, are appropriate, and are provided in conformity with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). However, the term “appropriate” education, does not mean the best education, nor an education that maximizes the child’s full potential. It can also differ from one child to the next, because what

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

Needs and Interests that effect the Disability Management process Looking over Julia’s file as a Disability case manager it is important to make note of Julia’s work as a Personal Support Worker (PSW) ; before and after her exacerbation of symptoms, her family life, and possible return to work opportunities. Work as a Personal Support Worker (PSW) Julia has been working as a full time PSW with a community agency for 8 years. Before working Julia attained a Bachelor of Arts in Community studies.