par Kaori Handa Il y a 1 année
75
Plus de détails
I have an experience in regression. Last semester in a practicum, one of the student's parents did not want him to continue with the interventions. So, the student had a big regression in how he would control his behavior as he had behavioral problems. Although, with the help of the teachers, and the principal, the parent changed their minds and accepted again the interventions and the special education teacher recommended ESY to have consistency in his education.
Section 3: Consideration for implementation of the Endrew ruling
According to OSERS, the court's decision that they would clarified that the standard for determining whether an IEP is sufficient to provide FAPE is whether the child is offered an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.
Section 2: Clarification of FAPE requirement of the IDEA
a student's potential for growth, when developing his or her IEP.
a student's disability,
the views of the student's parents,
a student's academic and functional needs,
Section 1: An overview of the Supreme Court's ruling in Endrew
Provide meaningful opportunities for appropriate academic and functional advancement and to enable the child to make progress.
I am working on how to develop an IEP, one of the things that I like the most is that we can have a lot of imagination on how to provide the opportunities providing an appropriate education. For example, during a class last semester, I had the opportunity to make multiple IEPs, and in one of them I had the case of a second language learner, and I provided multiple activities and interventions where the student will enjoy learning a second language and not have fear of learning.
The judge also ordered the school district to reimburse Endrew's parents for tuition in Firefly Autism House, transportation costs, and attorney's fees and court costs.
The judge found that the IEP team had not provided Drew with programming to address his problem behavior, which failed to enable Drew to progress toward his academic and functional goals.
Fifth, the Endrew's decision needed to be more cleared, but until the hearing officers and judges would apply the new Rowley/Endrew two-part test to the facts presented in the future FAPE litigation.
Fourth, the court settled the split among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal with respect to the educational benefit question by rejecting the lower or the minimus educational benefit standard and embracing the higher educational benefit standard.
Third, the court's decision in the Endrew case did not replace the Rowley decision. They clarified Rowley by adding a new standard to their two-part test Rowley/Endrew.
Second, the court rejected the higher maximizing type standard sought. The judges focused their idea on how students with disabilities should progress in light of the education of their unique disabilities and circumstances.
First, the court rejected the de minimus or trivial standard that requires that IEP teams should offer a reasonable IEP, that will enable the student to have appropriate progress in their education.
The court can only determined a meaningful education based on the light of a student's potential
2. Rowley test was substantive, it required that courts examine a student's IEP to determine whether the IEP developed by the school was reasonably calculated to enable a student to receive educational benefits.
To calculate whether or not a student is eligible for receiving educational benefits, the hearing offices and judges have to have sufficient interpretations of what degree of educational benefit is sufficient for a school to meet the second prong, and provide FAPE.
1. Rowley test stressed the importance of schools adhering to the procedural requirements of the IDEA when determining if a school had provided FAPE.
Reasons for school district losses were as follows:
failing to notify a student's parents of their rights under the IDEA.
changing a student's placement prior to developing an IEP
delaying conducting a student's evaluation and developing his IEP for 6 months.
failing to include the classroom teacher in developing a student's IEP.
Second, is the individualized education program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the school to receive educational benefits?
First, has the school complied with the procedures of the Act?
Now I have a better understanding of procedural and substantive. And this is because I couldn't recognize that there is a big difference between both. Procedural means that the rights and the students have failed under IDEA. On the other hand substantive, it is more about the content of what is going on in the IEP, it is failed, then that's a big problem.
I wonder what happens to the students that might have an intellectual disability mentally like three or four years less than what they are, or that they will always have a mental age of three or five years old. Would they still apply to FAPE? Or, they would not?
Statement of how the student's parents will be informed about their progress
Monitor student's progress
Accommodations and Modifications
Date of when it will begin, and the frequency, duration, and location of the services
Related Services
Student's progress towards the annual goals
Annual Goals and Short Term Objectives
PLAAFP (Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance)
That is something that Brother Cloward mentioned, students should not have the same IEP. It should be unique needs and assessments to progress in their education. If the students do not have a proper IEP then they will not have the proper progress in their grade level, and that will be regression. I wonder what happens if a school has the problem of providing the same IEP to all the students in the special education program, would that also be a denial of FAPE or just illegal to make? Or are they the same thing?
Procedure requirements
including dispute resolution procedures that would allow a child's parents to request mediation, an impartial due process hearing, and to file a suit in a federal or state court to resolve the issue.
permitting parents to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parents disagree with the school's evaluation.
I wonder where the parents can get the person to get an independent education evaluation. Are there any like agencies maybe where they can get it? Also, can it be recommended by the MDT? Like the MDT can also provide a suggested IEE personnel? I just wonder since the parents are the ones that would like a different opinion.
allowing parents the opportunity to examine their child's educational needs.
securing parental consent before initiating evaluations of their child's educational program.
inviting parents to participate in meetings to develop their child's educational program.
providing notice to the parents when their child's education program is discussed so the parents can participate in the discussions in a meaningful way.
It is shown that when parents of the students with disabilities actively participate in the programs, students develop greater achievement and less problem behaviors.
The congress recognized that the receipt of special education services by children with disabilities depended in part on their parents' abilities to advocate on their behalf when it passed the EAHCA in 1975. And they created the procedural safeguards.
Tatgenhorst and his colleagues asserted that special education can be best thought of in terms of what it is not: Special education is not regular education.
It must address academic needs, social needs, behavioral needs, emotional needs, health needs, and vocational needs.
When I decided to choose Special Education as my major, I understood that it is more than just education. It is also the social needs, behavioral needs, and vocational needs. I have learned the importance of how to address these different needs for my future students. For example, I learned that it is important to make sure that you are building a good relationship with your student too, to know which needs they might be required.
They are free to impose more demanding standards than those contained in the federal law.
Arkansas, Iowa, and New Jersey have higher FAPE standards than the federal government, but the state legislatures amended the state statutes to bring them into line with the federal standards.
The school district is responsible for developing the student's IEP in collaboration with the parents.
In case that the parents place their child in a private school, because in the school district they did not get the appropriate FAPE, then they can potentially collect a tuition reimbursement from the school district.
When the parents have decided to place their children in a private school or facility, then the children no longer have a right to FAPE, unless the school district made a FAPE available for the students.
If the school district personnel decides that a student needs to attend a private school or facilitate to receive FAPE, they should provide a FAPE and also pay the costs of placement.
If the students use assistive technology devices owned by the school, and because of the student's negligence or abuse, they might get charged if it is allowed under the state law.
The school may face legal problems if they do not follow some financial restrictions that they must follow when they are doing the special education program among with the IEP.
This is very interesting. Where I am from, Lima, Peru, there are public schools and also private schools. The public schools down there do not provide FAPE for students with disabilities. And the private schools also do not provide FAPE, they do not even provide just general education if cannot provide the appropriate education to them, that is why there are only specific schools for students with disabilities but there are mostly for students with blindness. It is really interesting how it works there, I would love to make some changes when I will get my master's degree. Like in the Department of Education, and make a lot of changes and provide FAPE.
