Special education is a very sensitive field especially when it comes to the education sector. For years now, cases revolving around education for students with special needs is still an issue with cases, both major and minor, arising every day. The persons with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 were put in place to ensure that students with disabilities acquired an education for free and similar to that of the other students without the same situation (Hurd & Piepgrass, 2009). This is the so-called Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). This act is also inclusive of other elements like Individualized Education Programme (IEP), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Procedure Safeguards, Parent and Teacher Participation, as well as Appropriate Evaluation. All these elements, six in number, were put in place to ensure that disabled students were well catered for in the education system. This paper looks at previous cases in regards to the Special Education Law and how the verdict given on each has an influence on education for the disabled.
A 1982 case dubbed Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley was one of the most significant cases in providing a guideline for the direction of education for the disabled. Amy Rowley was a deaf student who was enrolled in the Hendrick Hudson Central District School following an agreement by both the parents and the institution to work together in the provision of her education (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 2017). When she joined the school, Amy was put in a kindergarten class where the school was supposed to observe her to determine what services she needed to supplement her studies. Once the trial period was over, it was decided that Amy stays in the kindergarten class but be issued with an FM hearing aid. She completed her kindergarten year without much trouble.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Following her joining of the first grade in the successive year, it was required that Amy be enrolled in a regular classroom. However, she was supposed to have a special tutor for the deaf who would provide special instructions to her every day. Additionally, Amy was also supposed to have three hour sessions with a speech therapist per week (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 2017). All this was in accordance with the IDEA requirements. Amy’s parents agreed to this but presented a claim that she be provided with an interpreter too, an act that was considered unnecessary. In her previous encounter with an interpreter, Amy was found not to require the services provided by them (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 2017). After a detailed consultation, the school denied Amy’s parents request for the provision of an interpreter.
The parents then presented their case to an independent examiner who also found it unnecessary to have an interpreter. Amy’s parents then went further to present their case to a District Court. The court looked into the claim presented and also analyzed the ruling of the independent examiner after which they looked into the evidence presented by the school. Following this considerations, the court ruled against Amy’s parents citing that she was academically progressing (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 2017).
The main issue, in this case, was the provision of a specific service (interpretation) for Amy. Analyzing the case, the ruling from the courts was justified and right. Amy’s parents were asking for more than Amy required. The interpreter had noticed that Amy was doing fine without interpretation and this is also evidential in her success. According to IDEA, students should only be provided with services that would affect their education if not present. In this case, an interpreter was unnecessary.
Another similar case to this one is the Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, F. In this case, the defendant, Cedar Rapids, was accused of not providing the required services to Garret F., a disabled student in their school. Garret had an accident when he was of age four where he broke his spinal column (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, F., 2007). The accident made him crippled from then henceforth, and he used a wheelchair to navigate around. His mental capability was not affected in any way as he is described as an intelligent and creative student. However, the accident made him become ventilator dependent. With this situation at hand, Garret always needed someone to be there for him and to provide for his physical needs even while at school.
During his first years in school, Garret’s needs were attended to by his close family members. His parents, later on, employed a licensed nurse to cater for him whom they used to pay using funds obtained from their insurance and proceeds that they received (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, F., 2007). This expenses became heavy on them, and Garret’s mother asked the school to take financial responsibility for services that he required, a request that the District turned down citing that it had no legal obligation to provide such. Garret’s mother then went ahead to present her case to the Iowa Department of Education where her claim was presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ analyzed the issue by looking at how the district provided services for other disabled students and how other schools attended on students with ventilator dependency. He finally ruled out that the District was lawfully required to cater for Garret’s financial needs when he is in school (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, F., 2007).
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the District challenged it in federal Court where their plea was also ruled out. The court’s ruling indicated that the IDEA requires schools to provide FPE and related services (which implies a service(s) that a student cannot do without) (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, F., 2007). This case has provided a great foundation for many other similar cases with schools taking the full responsibility of catering for needs of disabled students. The phrase ‘related services’ which was least understood became clear as a result of this case and shade a new light into the implications of the IDEA.
Protections included in the IDEA for students with disabilities
The IDEA protects learners with disabilities from being denied a free and appropriate education due to their handicapped situation. In the ancient days, long before the enactment of the IDEA, students with disabilities were not allowed into most schools as they were as seen as an extra burden. Schools denied their requests for enrolment citing that they were not capable of providing for them. Those enrolled in schools were also not receiving an education equal to that of those without a disability. The IDEA, however, protected them from this discrimination citing that they were equal to anyone else without disability and were entitled to receive an education. It allows them to enroll in regular education classrooms and learn alongside other students.
Significantly, the IDEA also protects disabled students from being denied or lacking services that they require to engage in education successfully. As it was aforementioned, most students with disabilities have special needs that require attendance even when at school. The IDEA caters for this by legally requiring schools to provide for needs that students cannot do without or rather services that they require to realize full academic potential.
Parents for students with disabilities protection under the IDEA
Parents of disabled students are protected from any form of discrimination (Parental protections, 2013). Some employers could resolve in firing a certain parent due to a case where he or she has a child with a disability. Such an act is considered unlawful and punishable under the law. Parents experiencing such are required to file a suit against their employers for unlawful discrimination.
Again, the parents are also protected from being denied work-offs to cater for their children with disabilities (Parental protections, 2013). This is presented in the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and it demands that employers to allow for a parent to have a work-off or leave that is about providing care for their disabled student. Moreover, parents are also protected from being denied retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (Parental protections, 2013).
Impact of IDEA on personal life
The IDEA has presented me with a great deal of information that is going to be relevant and instrumental in providing care for the students with special needs in my career path. For instance, I will always ensure that I treat students with disabilities in the same way as those without. I will always be ready and prepared to provide any services that I might be required to offer for a student with a disability. Moreover, I will learn to personalize my teaching and approach such students on an individual level so as to ensure that I offer them full assistance. In a furthered attempt, I will always be on the look-out for any instances of discrimination made against such individuals and take legal action where necessary. Educating other students on the importance of appreciating and socializing with disabled students will also be one of my key focus areas.
The reason for this is because a student with a disability is no different from the rest of us. No one chooses to have or to be born with a disability. Significantly, being disabled does not make one less of a person than the other. Everyone deserves a shot at life and requires to be presented with the opportunities that the world presents even if they lack a limb, cannot hear, cannot see, or a mentally handicapped. In my opinion, that is common sense that does not require the law to trigger action.
The Rhonda Case
In her book, “Case studies in special education law: no child left behind act and individuals with disabilities education improvement act,” Weishaar (2007) looks into a case involving a girl named Rhonda. Rhonda is a 3rd-grade student who has a learning disability. She is described as being good in mathematics and the use of verbal skills. However, Rhonda has a problem when it comes to reading and writing. This has resulted in difficulties in doing tests as well as assignments given at school. She always requires someone to assist her through any class activity that involves reading and writing. As a result of this, Rhonda has two teachers to help her through her studies. Ms. Jackson is her general education teacher, and Ms. Mills is her special education teacher.
During Mrs. Jackson’s classes, Rhonda has to go out of class to get further instruction from Ms. Mills. Ms. Jackson, who uses the same instruction method for all her students, indicates that she is frustrated by Rhonda’s up and down behavior and suggests that she be taken to a school for students with special needs. She states that Rhonda delays the studying of the other students and also adds that she has a hard time managing Rhoda which translates into managing herself as a teacher. Ms. Mills, on the other hand, cites discord between her and Ms. Jackson which as she states gives her difficulties in engaging Rhonda on a personal level.
This case is thus characterized by two main arguments. Ms. Jackson feels that her way of instruction cannot meet Rhonda’s special needs. She states that she feels like she is oppressing Rhonda through her collective mode of teaching which also affects Rhonda in that she is not able to meet her academic goals. Again, she sites that Rhonda’s inclusion in her class hinders the successful teaching of the rest of the students. Ms. Mills, on the other hand, feels that Rhonda is a fit in the general education setting. She argues that if Ms. Jackson were more cooperative, Rhonda would achieve her goals and benefit largely from LRE. She also says that Ms. Jackson’s instruction method will affect Rhonda’s education negatively.
In using the Daniel two-part test, an evaluation of Rhonda’s case is herein presented. The first part of the test requires individuals to look at how efficient education of a disabled student in a general classroom impacts on the satisfaction of the teacher and students. In analyzing our case, the introduction of supplementary services seems to be working well for the rest of the teachers expect for Ms. Jackson. She has a personal vendetta against Rhonda which makes her have a negative attitude in educating her. Other teachers, as Ms. Mills indicates, have always worked for hand in hand with her thus providing course material to her which helps in assisting Rhonda in her studies.
The second part of the test requires one to measure the probability of appropriate education for the disabled if placed in a setting that is restrictive. In this case, secluding Rhonda will not provide her with the appropriate education that she requires in accordance with IDEA. Keeping her away from the rest of the students is only probably going to increase her condition which can also be improved through social interactions and joint classwork. It is, therefore, inappropriate to restrict her from being part of the general classroom in which she has proved to successfully exist especially in other subjects.
In accordance with the results of this test, Ms. Jackson is chargeable with denied Rhonda her right to a least restrictive education (LRE) which she is justified to obtain in accordance with the IDEA. Her special needs do not affect other students in any notable negative way as well as the rest of the teachers involved in teaching the classroom. With this information at hand, Ms. Jackson is expected to work together with Ms. Mills in providing the educational support Rhonda needs without showing negativity and resentment to her duty and mandate.
Taking Rhonda to a segregated special needs school is not a way of resolving this issue. This is because her requirement for special needs does not in any way affect the other students as it was aforementioned. Nevertheless, Rhonda should not be denied the right to having a special needs instructor. Apparently, she cannot successfully engage in the education system without the assistance of one. My recommendation would be that Ms. Jackson be trained on how to instruct her classroom without generalizing her teaching. She should learn to consider the presence of Rhonda in that class and treat her as equally important as the other students. Moreover, she should be willing to work hand in hand with Ms. Mills by providing the curriculum content she teaches for Rhonda’s special guidance.
In conclusion, education for students with disabilities should be taken to account for a serious and highly sensitive issue. Teachers need to be trained on how to go about the training of such students, especially on how to establish an IEP. These students are much like the rest and deserve to be treated in just the same way. However, in cases where a student’s disability proves to have an effect on other students in an LRE setting, it is advisable for the student to be enrolled in a special education facility where they can have a personal instructor. Significantly, the goal of educating them should be to ensure that they receive a free and appropriate education whatsoever.
References
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (2017). Wrights Law . Retrieved 24 March 2017 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (2007). Wrights Law . Retrieved 24 March 2017 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm
Hurd, W., H. & Piepgrass, S. C. (2009). Special education law. Hein Online . Retrieved 24 March 2017 from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/urich44&div=8&id=&page =
Parental Protections (2013). Wrights Law . Retrieved 24 March 2017 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/protections.index.htm
Weishaar, M. K. (2007). “Case 8.1 Rhonda.” In Case studies in special education law: no child left behind act and individuals with disabilities education improvement act . New York City, NY: Pearson.
