placement were vague the schools procedural safeguards were not addressed and

Placement were vague the schools procedural

This preview shows page 10 - 13 out of 16 pages.

placement were vague, the school’s procedural safeguards were not addressed, and Reed’s current IEP goals and objectives were not discussed. a. Non-Compliance The parents stated that the district assessment did not match up with their testing results. The discussion of the Kennedy Center being a school for DHH students was brief. Details about the programs they provide for their students were not disclosed, nor did they discuss the grade levels they teach, Kennedy’s school-wide performance, or the SES backgrounds of their students. The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is not being offered, even when Director Goldstein insists that the Kennedy Center is the best option for Reed. According to the law case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) , “…separate is not equal. Segregated placements are inherently stigmatizing. In addition, for many students, interaction with peers who do not have disabilities is an essential component of role-modeling and appropriate social development.” The school fails to offer a FAPE that emphasizes Reed’s academic needs and related services and prepare him for his post-secondary life. The school district should have offered transportation for Reed to and from the Kennedy Center since the parents expressed that they lived far away from the school site. According to the IDEA, schools are required to provide transportation necessary to bring students with disabilities to and from school.
Image of page 10
IEP Process 11 b. Compliance The Greiblers provided reports and letters from Reed’s previous school to the IEP team. The Director of Special Education stated that the staff at Kennedy had adequate training and experience to create a typical learning environment for their students. He also informed the parents about the school’s 50-50 inclusion program: 50% of the day is spent in a general education class, while the other 50% will be spent in a special education class. Mrs. Greibler believes the best LRE for Reed would be to transition him to Jones Elementary School and be mainstreamed in a general education class. The idea with this transition is so he can develop his social skills with his peers. According to law case, Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) , there is a two-part test, otherwise known as the Rowley test, which determines if a school is complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) requirements. First, education in a regular classroom can be achieved, with the use of supplemental aides, and second, the school has mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate. The district is willing to offer FAPE to Reed at both the Kennedy Center and Jones Elementary School. According to the IDEA, “students with disabilities should be placed as close as possible to a school that is close to home and be educated in the school in which s/he would attend if nondisabled.” The school district should have offered a type of reimbursement plan for Reed’s parents since they offered to drive Reed to the Kennedy Center at their expense, in
Image of page 11
IEP Process 12 order for him to see a qualified SLP. However, since the Greiblers are
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture