Week 2
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Prompt: Choose one of the court cases discussed by Friend in Ch. 1 of Special Education: Contemporary Perspectives for School Professionals on pg. 11. Explain what the court case decided and how it relates to the other information in the chapter about the basics of special education.
The court rule that public school was ordered to test Spanish – speaking children in their language,
The school was placing Spanish – speaking students in a Sped Ed class with mild to moderate students because their IQ scores that was written in English was low.
Because of Diana, school were forced to be more diligent in determining whether the education problem had to do with their limited English language proficiency or were a learning disability now,
The state of California had taken away the students Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE)
In the case the supreme court ruled in 9-0 that under the education for all handicapped children act of 1975 Irving had to provide catheterization services during class hours to a student with spina ta bi student.
the case also related to the case of 1999 Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett. F. under the related services for providing health care to students during school day.
Court Ruling: Health services deemed necessary for a qualified child with a disability by the IEP team must be provided as long as a non physician can perform the services.
Specifics: The case involved Garret F., who was a student in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he was a quadriplegic and required a ventilator after his spinal column was severed in a motorcycle accident when he was four years old. During the school day he needed a personal attendant to see to his health care needs, that included urinary catheterization, suctioning of his tracheostomy tube, and observation for respiratory distress. The parents requested a hearing under the IDEA, an administrative law judge decided that the school board was responsible for the services. A federal trial court in Iowa affirmed, concluding that such services did not fall with the “medical services” exclusion clause or the IDEA’s related services provision. The case then moved to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court’s earlier opinion in Irving Independent School District V. Tatro had established an unambiguous standard, whereby the services of a physician are exempted, but “services that can be provided in the school setting by a nurse or qualified layperson are not”. Garret’s services did not require a doctor, the court upheld the lower court’s decision. In 1998, the court’s decision in Tatro, the school board did not argue that Garret’s care constituted medical services, it proposed that several other factors should be considered, and that included “whether the care is continuous or intermittent” and the expense of the service. The majority, noted that the school district’s proposed test was not supported by the statute’s text or any other regulation. Focusing on the issue of expense, the court rejected accepting a cost-based standard, arguing that doing so would have required it to engage in judicial lawmaking without any congressional guidance. Congress intended the IDEA to open the door of public education to all qualified students and to require school boards to “educate handicapped children with non handicapped children whenever possible”.
Ruling: Under the IDEA and the court’s own precedent, the justices ruled that a school board must fund such related services to help guarantee that students such as Garret were integrated into the public schools.
Conclusion: Special Education is the means through which children with disabilities receive an education specifically designed to help them reach their learning potential. Within the Special Education umbrella there are many different services for Special Needs students’. For Garret, he needed related services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the IEP of the child. His medical services will be evaluated so that they can better assist him with his disability which will allow him to benefit from the special education services.
General Document Comments 0
Shenell Taylor
Forest Grove School District
VS
T.A.
T.A. attended public school in the Forest Grove School District in Forest Grove, Oregon, form kindergarten through the winter term of his junior year in high school. In high school T.A. had difficulty with his schoolwork, but the school determined that T.A. didn’t qualify for a special education services. In 2003 T.A. was diagnosed with ADHD and a number of learning disabilities. T.A. was enrolled in a private school that focuses on special needs children.
Fast forwarded to 2009, Forest Grove School District (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school.
In some situations, parents are entitled to be reimbursed for private school tuition, even when the child has never received special education services from a public school. Prior to this case, the interpretation of law was that public school services had to be accessed or tuition claims would not be considered. This case relates to Chapter One simply by how IDEA was enforces during the trail, how his parents knew about FAPE and using there safeguards as a backup. There’s nothing like a parent who knows their rights and fighting for their child.
I decided to explore the “ Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” court case. In this 1954, court case the United States Court ruled that that the United State Laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Brown v. Board of Education was the foundation of the civil right movement. This case brought an end to racial segregation in the school system . Prior to the case children with disabilities were usually sent to live in institutions and were even denied any access to education. If a student had a disability they were typically segregated in a separate classroom or schools. This case made some professionals question the court ruling on rather separate classes provided students with a disability with appropriate education. Studies showed that students with intellectual disabilities in general education classes achieve more academically than those in a special class. When a child that has special needs is placed in general education class with its peers the teachers’ expectation of them were higher. Special need students were learning in the same curriculum as there peer.
Key Issue:
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Court Ruling:
The ruling defined for the first time Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and stated that FAPE was met if the Individual Education Program (IEP) developed through the act’s procedures enabled the child to receive educational benefits.
Case Specifics:
Amy Rowley was a deaf student in a public school in Peekskill, N.Y. She was in Kindergarten and prior to the beginning of the school year her parents met with school administrators to plan for Amy’s supplemental services. Amy was provided a sign language interpreter in the classroom for the first part of the year. Following a trial period of two weeks the interpreter reported that Amy did not need the services in the classroom. After Amy’s Kindergarten year an IEP was prepared for Amy.
The IEP provided that Amy would remain in the regular classroom and would be provided with an FM wireless hearing aid in the classroom and she would receive instruction from a tutor for one hour a day from a speech therapist for three hours per week outside of the classroom.
Amy’s parents objected to portions of the IEP, stating that the school provided Amy with a sign language interpreter instead of the other forms of assistance identified in the IEP. School Administrators refused the request claiming that Amy did not need an interpreter in the classroom. The Rowley’s argued that because Amy could only decode a fraction (approximately 60%) of the oral language available to hearing students in class, she was entitled to a sign-language interpreter. Without an interpreter, they argued, Amy would be denied the educational opportunity available to her classmates.
After a hearing officer declared that Amy was entitled to an interpreter, the school board sought judicial review. A federal trial court in New York ruled, and the Second Circuit affirmed, that Amy was being denied the opportunity to achieve her potential at a level “commensurate with the opportunity provided other children”—a standard that echoed the regulations implemented for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Conclusion
The information contained in this case is one which relates to other Special Education information in the chapter by displaying an example of how Federal Laws. In addition to providing a definition for FAPE, the Rowley Court voiced a standard of judicial deference to the decision making of educational authorities.
Educational opportunities were denied to children because they were considered to be “exceptional”, which include mental retardation, emotional disturbed, physically handicapped, hyperactive and other behavioral issues children may have. The board of education did not provide schooling for these children, which violated their own board regulation. The board said it would cost millions of dollars to accommodate all the exceptional child. The courts disagreed failed to provide due process hearings and periodic reviews of each exceptional student case.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments