Fourteenth Amendment. Retrieved from



Exam Case: Children With Exceptionalities:Special Education and Special NeedsJoyce H. FragaleSchool Law, EDU 702University of New EnglandMarch 15, 2014CHILDREN WITH EXCEPTIONALITIES EXAM CASE: ?Exam Case:? Federal Appellate Court… [7/26/12]Facts: “L.” is a student with autism spectrum disorder and pervasive developmental disorder. Prior to entering preschool, the Local Board of Education (LBE) determined that L. qualified for special education and related services as a preschooler with a disability. The LBE developed an IEP that provided for placement in its Stepping Stones program, a program exclusively for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. L.’s IEP did not provide for any interaction with non-disabled children. L.’s mother approved this IEP, and L.?started at?Stepping Stones in 2007.At Stepping Stones, L. received approximately three hours per day of one-on-one Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) instruction, a research-based system of educating children with autism. Among other strategies, ABA includes a “mainstreaming” component that “occurs only when the child has adequate skills to enable a meaningful interaction with a more typical peer.” For the remainder of the school day, L. participated in group activities with other autistic children including some who were higher functioning than L., who was “one of the lower functioning students” in the class.In Fall 2007, L.’s parents requested that the LBE consider an alternative placement for L. to provide her with opportunities to interact with typically developing peers. The LBE denied the request in November 2007. The parents then requested a meeting that was convened in December 2007, to discuss L.’s IEP for the coming year, and their request that L. be placed at the Children’s Center, an inclusive preschool, rather than at Stepping Stones. To support their placement request, L.’s parents provided the LBE with reports of assessments, and video of L. in an environment that included typically developing peers, which they believed showed that L. was ready for, and would benefit from, interaction with typically developing peers.Prior to the December 2007 meeting, the LBE staff met to develop a proposed IEP, which was presented to the parents at the December 2007 meeting. The LBE’s draft IEP provided for continued placement at Stepping Stones without specifically providing for any interaction with non-disabled children. According to the LBE, L. did not have the requisite skills to benefit from placement in an inclusion program or from any interaction with typically developing peers. The IEP also provided that the LBE staff would “continue to monitor [L.'s] progress to ensure she has opportunities to interact with non-disabled peers when she is able to benefit from them.” The parents did not sign the proposed IEP.In late February 2008, the LBE began to include “reverse-inclusion component,” which “allowed a child from outside the classroom, either typical or preschool disabled, to come in to play with the group in order to demonstrate social skills, providing students with the opportunity to emulate.”In early March 2008, L.’s parents transferred her to the Children’s Center, where she would be placed in a class that included both typically developing children and children with disabilities. Additionally, they initiated administrative proceedings against the LBE, seeking reimbursement of the expenses they incurred in placing L. at the Children’s Center and in privately obtaining other services for L.Let’s say the parents have exhausted all administrative remedies and now have filed a suit in court against the local School Board.? Exceptionalities Case AnalysisLegal Basis for ExceptionalitiesDe jure segregation was upheld in the United States Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). The court interpreted the 14th amendment as meaning that racial segregation was acceptable under the law, as long as separate facilities for each group were equal. In 1954 the separate but equal interpretation of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was overturned by the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 483 (1954). “The key language in Brown regarding Plessy is: “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 4-7). Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent for equal educational opportunity for all students. The Landmark case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of PA, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972) extended the rights of the 14th Amendment to students with disabilities. PARC brought forth the case in reference to a law that?allowed schools to deny education to students with intellectual impairment.? “The case was decided in favor of PARC, stating that Pennsylvania schools cannot deny any intellectually impaired child access to a free public program of education and training; hence, these Pennsylvania statutes and practices were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-3). Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972) was similar to the PARC case and embraced all disabilities.? The findings of the case are as follows: ?????? Schools are required “to provide a publicly-supported education for these “exceptional children.”?????? Students are entitled to due process rights.?????? Lack of money cannot be an excuse for not providing services.?????? Preference is specified for “regular public school class with appropriate ancillary services” rather than special classes. (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-3).Students with exceptionalities may require special instruction or accommodations due their disabilities.? Because students who need special education require special instruction, and students who have disabilities need accommodations, different laws apply to each. Students who require special education are covered under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Students who require accommodations are covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Federal and state laws mandate special education services for these students. ?Lawyers will use both specific laws and the Fourteenth Amendment when bringing actions that deal with student classification (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014).The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Students who need special instruction require special education and fall under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). A history of federal and state laws as well as major cases led up to The Education for all Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142 of 1975, which originally included five components: Free Appropriate EducationProcedural SafeguardsLeast Restrictive EnvironmentIndividualized Education PlanParents play an active role in educational decisionsThe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 Amendments added in 1997, reauthorized in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act evolved from the original PL 94-142 of 1975 to include: Zero RejectFind and ServeSpecial Education Services Related Services NotificationDue Process Rights Records Protection, and Non-discriminatory Evaluation (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014). “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to age 18 or 21 in cases that involve 14 specified categories of disability” (). IDEA disability categories include: Speech and Language Disorder, Specific Learning Disability, Emotional Disability, Intellectual Disability, Autism, Other Health Impairment, Hearing Impairment, Orthopedic Impairment, Visual Impairment, Deaf, Deaf/Blind, Traumatic Brain Injury, Developmental Delay, and Multiple Disabilities (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-7).Special Education Program As stated in Hillman and Trevaskis (2014, p. 5-5) a special education program is a specially designed curriculum established to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability at no cost to the parents. The program could be conducted in the classroom, home, hospital, residential institution, and other settings. Eligibility for special education requires a two-part standard:*Categorical Element: Must have a disability recognized by IDEA*Functional Element: Disability adversely affects educational progress such that the student needs special education.?Least Restrictive Environment as designated in IDEA is defined as: Non-academic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities… to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal from the educational environment occurs only if the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-8). Legal Test IDEAThe United States Supreme Court case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) is the landmark case concerning?substantive complaints.?The United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision indicated that the phrase “free appropriate public education” meant to “open the door of the public education” to children with disabilities rather than “guarantee any particular level of education once inside.” ?Thus “a basic floor of opportunity” is guaranteed by IDEA, not the development of a student’s maximum potential” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-11). “The Rowley case established a two-question test for special education cases involving children falling under IDEA.First, is a basic floor of opportunity being offered?Second, is the plan reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit?” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-11)“IDEA is enforced by the Office of Special Education Programs” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-9).Students who are covered by IDEA are also covered by section 504, but not all Section 504 students are eligible for services under IDEA (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014).Students with disabilities who require accommodations and attend public schools fall under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Students who attend private schools are covered under The Americans with Disabilities Act, but not Section 504. “Section 504 is not limited to schools but applies to any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-17). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973Section 504 is a “non-discrimination law” which seeks to “level the playing field” by “eliminating impediments to full participation” for students with disabilities. The statute was intended to “prevent intentional or unintentional discrimination against persons with disabilities, persons who are believed to have disabilities, or family members of persons with disabilities”. Children with disabilities are entitled to services under IDEA, only if they are "eligible" under one of the fourteen specified categories listed above. Section 504 protects all persons with a disability who: 1. have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;?2. have a record of such an impairment; or?3. are regarded as having such an impairment (). Section 504 states that: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . " Section 504 regulations require a school district to provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. Regular or special education, related aids and services, must be designed to meet the student's educational needs at the same level that nondisabled students’ needs are met. The definition of a “qualified” student is “whether a student’s disability substantially limits his/her ability to learn”. Accommodations may be permanent or temporary. “Children also covered under Section 504 could have health related issues, such as allergies or asthma” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-18). In the case D.L. et rel. K.L. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, 706 F.3d 256 (2013), parents sued on behalf of their child to receive the special education services under 504 that were offered by the public school, in spite of the fact that they had enrolled the child in a private school. The courts ruled that there was no violation of 504 because the child was not discriminated against based on his disability, and “public schools need not serve up their publicly funded services like a buffet for which Appellants can pick and choose” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-18).Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 “The Title II part of the ADA is essentially the equivalent to Section 504 and applies to students with disabilities in public schools, but Title III of ADA mandates compliance by private institutions that do not receive federal aid” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-19). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a civil rights law that prohibits, “under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. Disability is defined by the ADA as "...a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity”.().Legal Test 504 and ADA The United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights administers both Section 504 and Title II of the ADA (Hillman and Trevaskis, 5-19). Section 504 and ADA are similar, with ADA merely being more inclusive in naming the institutions that must be in compliance. A school’s substantive duty under Section 504 and ADA is to provide an education that meets the needs of disabled children as adequately as the needs of non-disabled children. The legal test asks:*Does the child, as a result of a condition require accommodations?*If yes, does the education including accommodations “level the playing field in comparison to all other children?Tasks are limited to those that are: Readily achievable, easily accomplished, without much difficulty or expense (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014). Gifted and Talented Maine State Regulation #104Students may also require special instruction due to exceptionalities related to increased ability. There are no laws specific to gifted education at the federal level, however many states do have laws surrounding programming for students with gifts and talents.? Some students are dually exceptional meaning that they possess giftedness along with a disability. Regulation #104 mandates gifted education in the state of Maine. Civil Rights laws may come into play at the federal level. Section 1 of The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (). This ensures equal treatment for all students regardless of their classification. The Landmark case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of PA, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972) extended the rights of the 14th Amendment to students with disabilities. As stated above PARC brought forth the case in reference to a law that?allowed schools to deny education to students with intellectual impairment.? “The case was decided in favor of PARC, stating that Pennsylvania schools cannot deny any intellectually impaired child access to a free public program of education and training; hence, these Pennsylvania statutes and practices were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-3). Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972) was similar to the PARC case and embraced all disabilities (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-3).Legal ComplaintsThere are two types of complaints under special education Law. Procedural complaints are applicable if there is a breach in mandated procedures. Substantive complaints are applicable if the child is not receiving an appropriate education. ?Procedural – Was the correct procedure followed? Substantive – Is the child receiving an appropriate education?(Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014).Substantive Cases Under IDEAParents having complaints surrounding substantive issues must “exhaust all administrative remedies prior to going to court”. During this process students must “stay put” within their current placement. In the case of Doe v. Dublin City School District, No. 10-3492 (2011), parents were unsuccessful in trying to prove that going through the administrative process would have no result. However, Payne v. Peninsula School District, No. 07-35115 (2011) resulted in a decision that if the student’s civil rights are being violated then the “administrative remedies” need not be exhausted (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014). As stated above, the United States Supreme Court case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) is the landmark case concerning?substantive complaints. A “…free appropriate public education” (is) meant to “open the door of the public education” to children with disabilities rather than “guarantee any particular level of education once inside.” ?Thus “a basic floor of opportunity” is guaranteed by IDEA, not the development of a student’s maximum potential” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-11). “The Rowley case established a two-question test for special education cases involving children falling under IDEA.First, is a basic floor of opportunity being offered?Second, is the plan reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit?” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-11)Substantive Cases Under #504 and ADA A school’s substantive duty under Section 504 and ADA is to provide an education that meets the needs of disabled children as adequately as the needs of non-disabled children. The legal test asks:*Does the child, as a result of a condition require accommodations?*If yes, does the education including accommodations “level the playing field in comparison to all other children?Tasks are limited to those that are: Readily achievable, easily accomplished, without much difficulty or expense (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014)Mark which type of case this is:?XX IDEA Criteria Analysis for IDEA“L” is a student with Autism Spectrum and Pervasive Developmental disorders. Students who need special instruction require special education and fall under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). IDEA disability categories include: Speech and Language Disorder, Specific Learning Disability, Emotional Disability, Intellectual Disability, Autism, Other Health Impairment, Hearing Impairment, Orthopedic Impairment, Visual Impairment, Deaf, Deaf/Blind, Traumatic Brain Injury, Developmental Delay, and Multiple Disabilities (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-7).Autism is listed as a category covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). ?Therefore L is entitled to the protections of IDEA. “The Rowley case, Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), established a two-question test for special education cases involving children falling under IDEA.First, is a basic floor of opportunity being offered?Second, is the plan reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit?” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-11)Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Parents on behalf of “L” (L is referred to as female for writing purposes)The lawyer for the plaintiff would begin by reminding the court of the history behind classification laws. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 483 (1954), overturned the United States Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which upheld Dejure segregation. “The key language in Brown regarding Plessy is: “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 4-7). Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent for equal educational opportunity for all students. The lawyer for the plaintiff would argue that by requiring L to attend a program which enrolls exclusively preschoolers with autism, while at the same time denying L access to an environment which is inclusive of her same age peers, in fact reverts us back to the Plessy days of “separate but equal”.The Lawyer on behalf of the Plaintiff would claim that the Local Board of Education is in violation of provisions set forth by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990. After experiencing Stepping Stones L’s parents decided that L would benefit from a more inclusive environment where L could interact with “typically developing” peers. L’s parents felt that the Children’s center would be a more appropriate placement for L due to the fact that it is an inclusive preschool. IDEA dictates that L be provided with a “Free Appropriate Education”. L’s parents have documented video, assessments and reports that indicate that she is ready to interact with typical peers. Given this proof, an appropriate education would be a placement that included continual opportunities for this interaction. Stepping Stones provided a “Mainstreaming” component that would take place when L demonstrated adequate skills to interact with a more typical peer. Despite the fact that L’s parents provided the LBE with the videos, assessments and reports documenting L’s readiness, the LBE did not follow through with allowing L to participate in the “Mainstreaming” component. L is unlikely to continue her progress unless she is continually exposed to role models in the form of typical peers. Given these circumstances, a “free and appropriate education” which allows for a “basic floor of opportunity” as indicated in the Rowley Test can only be provided through L’s enrollment in an inclusive environment such as the Children’s Center. The Lawyer on behalf of the Plaintiff would also cite that IDEA designates that children benefit from the “Least Restrictive Environment”, … to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled…” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-8). Requiring L to stay at Stepping Stones where she, with the occasional exception of “reverse inclusion”, primarily models after students with the same exceptionality, is in violation of her right to participation in the “Least Restrictive Environment”. In fact it could be argued that lack of “typically developing” peers for students to interact with, as well as model the behaviors of, may actually deem Stepping Stones a restrictive and further handicapping environment. IDEA mandates that “parents play an active role in educational decisions” “Parents must be fully informed and provide written consent for placement of the child” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-6). L’s parents requested a meeting (convened in December 2008) specifically to discuss L’s annual IEP as well as their request that L be placed in the Children’s Center. L’s parents provided video and documentation to support their request. However the staff met prior to the annual IEP meeting, without parent notification, and drafted L’s IEP which provided for continued placement at Stepping Stones and did not address the parents’ request toward modifications allowing interaction with non-disabled peers. This is in violation of IDEA and the Rowley test. The plan is not “reasonably calculated to enable L to receive educational benefit”, that benefit being the opportunity for efficient development of social skills based on the parents documentation, and the parents were not part of the decision making process. The lawyer for the plaintiff would cite the definition of a special education program. A special education program is a “specially designed curriculum established to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability at no cost to the parents. The program could be conducted in the classroom, home, hospital, residential institution, and other settings (Hillman and Trevaskis (2014, p. 5-5). Because the LBE is in violation of IDEA on many levels, and has not met the requirements of the Rowley Test by providing L with a “ basic floor of opportunity” or “a plan reasonably calculated to enable L to receive educational benefit”, L’s program as it stands at Stepping Stones does not meet the requirements of the definition of special education. Therefore in order for L to receive the special education services to which she has a right as designated in IDEA based on her qualifying disability, she should be allowed reimbursement for expenses incurred due to her enrollment in the Children’s Center, at the expense of the LBE. Toward this end the Lawyer for the plaintiff’s would cite The Landmark case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of PA, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972), specifically … schools cannot deny any intellectually impaired child access to a free public program of education and training …these …practices are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” The lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff’s would also cite the conditions set forth by Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972). Schools are required to provide a publicly supported education for these “exceptional” children. Preference is specified for “regular public school class with appropriate ancillary services” rather than special classes. (Hillman And Trevaskis, p. 5-3). In summary, one could argue that one of the most important aspects of education for a child with autism is the development of social skills. Therefore, given the evidence above, L’s program at Stepping Stones does not offer a basic floor of opportunity, namely the opportunity to develop appropriate social skills through modeling. It could also be argued that this negates the ability of L’s plan to enable her to receive “educational benefit”. L is entitled to a “free public program of education and training”. Since this is not being adequately provided at Stepping Stones, the LBE should assure that it is provided in an appropriate educational facility such as the Children’s Center. Since L is entitled to a “free” appropriate education through the laws and cases cited above, any incurred expense should be shouldered by the LBE. The lawyer for the plaintiff (L) would also remind the court that IDEA mandates that a free and appropriate education involves “related services”. These services include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, counseling and psychological services. The plaintiffs’ lawyer would cite the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984), and Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). These cases decided that schools are required to pay all “health services” not performed by a physician. Above this financial burden cannot be used as an excuse for not providing services (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-13). The plaintiffs lawyer will also remind the court that in the case Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 129 S. Ct. 987 (2009) that parents could SEEK reimbursement upon proving that the alternative placement was needed to provide the student with an appropriate education, which has sufficiently been proven based on the fact listed above. He will also quote the writings of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the decision of Jefferson County School District v. Elizabeth E., 702 F.3d 1227 (2012), “the very small number of children for whom residential placement is the least restrictive environment are among the most vulnerable and historically underserved children in need of IDEA services.”The lawyer will assert that the facts above support that the students’ rights under IDEA support her placement at the Children’s CenterLawyer for the Defendant: Local Board of EducationThe lawyer for the defendant would begin by rebutting the notion that enrollment in Stepping Stones could be considered “Separate but Equal”. “Separate” in this case represents education that is above and beyond the basic “floor of opportunity” required by the law. The intent behind the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 483 (1954), is equal educational opportunity for all students. In order for a student with exceptionalities such as L to fully benefit from education, specialized services such as those offered at Stepping Stones are required in order to provide her with an education equivalent to that of her peers. The Lawyer on behalf of the defendant would dispute the claim that the Local Board of Education is in violation of provisions set forth by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990. In anticipation of her enrollment in preschool the Local Board of Education (LBE) developed an IEP for L providing for her enrollment the Stepping Stones program designed for preschoolers with Autism Spectrum disorders. L’s mother approved the IEP. IDEA dictates that L be provided with a “Free Appropriate Education”. Applied Behavioral Analysis instruction, a research based system for educating children with autism, along with a “mainstreaming” component are implemented as part of the children’s education at Stepping Stones. L is being provided with more than the Rowley Test required “basic floor of opportunity” through these educational strategies. L is one of the lower functioning students in the group and has not yet been allowed to take advantage of the “mainstreaming” component, as she has not yet demonstrated that she is ready to interact with a more typical peer. The videos, assessments and reports provided by L’s parents do not indicate the level of interaction needed in order for L’s programming to be changed. L’s parents would like the LBE to pay for her enrollment in the Children’s Center as well as expenses incurred for other services. However, the services provided at Stepping Stones are specialized and therefore offer more benefit in the realm of an “appropriate education” than can be offered at the Children’s Center. The Lawyer on behalf of the Plaintiff would also cite that IDEA designates that children benefit from the “Least Restrictive Environment”, “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal from the educational environment occurs only if the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (Hillman and Trevaskis, p. 5-8). L. has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorder. L’s initial enrollment at Stepping Stones as part of her educational career, is essentially allowing her to function in the “Least Restrictive Environment” given her special needs. Enrolling L in a mainstream environment at this point in her life will rob her of the benefits of appropriate modifications required as part of the special education that is crucial to her development. IDEA mandates that “parents play an active role in educational decisions” “Parents must be fully informed and provide written consent for placement of the child” (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-6). L’s mother approved the original IEP. L’s parents requested a meeting (convened in December 2008) specifically to discuss L’s annual IEP as well as their request that L be placed in the Children’s Center. The staff met prior to the annual IEP meeting. It is not unusual for the child’s team to gather informally on a regular basis to discuss the child’s progress. The child’s programming cannot be altered without parent notification and involvement in the decision making process. This would be in violation of IDEA. L’s parents provided video and documentation to support their request, however the evidence did not indicate a change in L’s plan. L’s plan, in accordance with the Rowley Test is “reasonably calculated to enable L to receive educational benefit”. L’s programming is research based and allows for continual monitoring, and well-planned steps toward inclusion. The lawyer for the plaintiff would cite the definition of a special education program. A special education program is a “specially designed curriculum established to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability at no cost to the parents. The program could be conducted in the classroom, home, hospital, residential institution, and other settings” (Hillman and Trevaskis (2014, p. 5-5). The Stepping Stones program is a free public multi step, multi component special education program specifically designed and carefully planned and carried out to most effectively benefit students with autism. The United States Supreme Court case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) states that “free appropriate public education” meant to “open the door of the public education” to children with disabilities rather than “guarantee any particular level of education once inside.” Thus “a basic floor of opportunity” is guaranteed by IDEA, not the development of a student’s maximum potential (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-10). The Stepping Stones program goes above and beyond minimum requirements in providing L with a “ basic floor of opportunity” and “a plan reasonably calculated to enable L to receive educational benefit”. In summary, the LBE through Stepping Stones not only offers a “basic floor of opportunity”, but a state of the art program using research based strategies to allow for the most effective learning for students with autism. L is entitled to a “free public program of education and training”, and there is none better for a student with L’s exceptionalities then that provided at Stepping Stones. L was receiving a “free” appropriate education well in compliance with the laws and cases cited above, during her enrollment at Stepping Stones. Therefore the plaintiff’s are responsible for any expenses incurred through her enrollment at the Children’s Center, as well as expenses incurred for “related services”. The defendant’s lawyer would cite the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984), and Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). These cases decided that schools are required to pay all “health services” not performed by a physician. Above this financial burden cannot be used as an excuse for not providing services (Hillman and Trevaskis, 2014, p. 5-13). Therefore the Children’s Center should be responsible for expenditures surrounding “related services” that were incurred as of L’s enrollment. The defendant’s lawyer will also cite Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), “the party seeking a due-process hearing under IDEA (the plaintiff) is the one who bears the burden of proof”. The plaintiffs lawyer will also remind the court that precedent was set in the case of Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 129 S. Ct. 987 (2009). It was decided, “parents could SEEK reimbursement, but they bear the burden of proving that the private school placement was needed to provide the student with an appropriate education— otherwise the expense is theirs”. Since the plaintiffs have been unable to prove that the alternative placement was needed, they are not entitled to reimbursement. Your overall assessment—Who will win the case, do you believe?I believe that the Local Board of Education will win the case. They are in compliance with IDEA and the 14th amendment. L is provided with a “Free and Appropriate” education in the “Least Restrictive Environment” given her exceptionalities. Research supported strategies are used to carry out her education. In my opinion the LBE surpassed the Rowley test in offering a “basic floor of opportunity” and a “plan reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit.” I think that L’s parents, however well intentioned, perhaps are misguided in their assumptions about what was best for L given her exceptionalities. Although I think that the Local Board of Education will win this case, if I were in their shoes, I think that I may have “bent” a little to keep the parents happy if feasible. In my humble uneducated opinion, no harm could come from more inclusion, regardless of Stepping Stones criteria for readiness, unless there were tendencies for the child to be aggressive which I don’t believe is typically a characteristic of this exceptionality. REFERENCESAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Retrieved from. v. Board of Education of Topeka - 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Retrieved from. Fourteenth Amendment. Retrieved from. of The United States. Retrieved from. v. Ferguson - 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Retrieved from , S., & Trevaskis, D. (2014). school law: Legal framework, guiding principles, and litigated areas. Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved from 504 and IDEA: Basic Similarities and Differences. Retrieved from. of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand that plagiarism policy as outlined in the “Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct” document relating to the Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that the work submitted is my original work developed specifically for this course and to the MSED program. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act/s, which could include expulsion from the University of New England? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download