100%(8)8 out of 8 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 13 pages.
classroom. Reed’s mother came prepared with a printed report of his current progress from two of his specialists, and the school seemed open to possibly increasing speech services to three times a week. During the collaborative meeting, Reed’s mother also suggested an aide due to the guidelines she read in the procedural safeguards. In the non-collaborative video, Reed’s mother had no knowledge of the safeguards, thereby hindering her ability to advocate for Reed. The safeguards clearly gave her a better platform to advocate for an aide. By the end of the collaborative meeting, Reed’s parents and the school staff had come to a possible compromise regarding Reed’s IEP.Reed’s parents are suggesting the most ideal conditions to meet IDEA and FAPE by attending a regular education classroom, at school in his local neighborhood. By removing him from the regular education classroom more than necessary, and/or requiring an unnecessary lengthy commute that could exclude Reed from his peers, is thereby denying FAPE and IDEA. According to Wright & Wright (2019), in order to abide by IDEA, school districts must aim to education disabled students in the regular classroom as much as possible, as deemed appropriate. In addition, the 1954 ruling on Brown v. Board of Education set a precedent that discrimination is never acceptable. The Supreme Court admitted that a sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn (Wright & Wright, 2006, p. 12). Reed’s placement in a different school with solely
disabled children could arguably cause him feelings of inferiority. This IEP meeting is notfollowing the Brown v. Board of Education case law, IDEA, nor providing FAPE in the least restrictive environment.2.During the non-collaborative IEP meeting, Reed’s parents expressed disagreement of Reed’s current performance level. The school argues that he is 18 months behind, while parents believe he is further along. The school should have offered Reed’s parents an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) per the procedural safeguards outlined in IDEA. They have a right to have an outside specialist evaluate Reed’s performance level (Lee & J.d.). This would be an individual that does not work for either school, or Reed’s parents. The school is not required to accept this finding, however it should be offered, asthis is a right. It could also help strengthen the relationship between members of the IEP meeting to come to an agreement on Reed’s academic level.4.Recommendations Procedural: A dedicated note takerMake sure signatures and paperwork is completed properly- if there is an agreementA special education teacher from the Jones school should of attendedSubstantive: Student should be placed in the LREProvide a current progress reportSee a speech therapist 3 times a week for 30 minutes Make sure Reeds goals and objectives are met and talked aboutAt the start of the collaborative meeting, Reed’s mom showed them a picture of Reed andgot to know each other a little bit. This is an important component to begin any meeting with in
order to build rapport with the student and family. Right off the bat, the non-collaborative