Solved by verified expert:You should read the FAPE cases. (FAPE Cases for journal file is attached) after complete the reading reflect on these questions : What are the legal issues of this case? How might things have gone differently? Is the school at risk? How/why?
iep_and_fape_case.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ASE 62
Anna
Mrs
Major issue: Eligibility
Secondary issue: Response to intervention
(us
Mrs
and
tam;
Characters
Ath
nun;
Anna Kowaiski, 8-year-old child with possible learning disability
Mrs. Kowaiski. Anna’s mother
ing 1
job
Mr. Kiena, school psychologist
Ms. Liu, 3rd grade teacher
I
Mr. Scott, special education teacher
Mr. Stevens. school social worker
Ms. Miller, principal
J
Ms. Denman. special education administrator
ote: This case has been written to present two different scenarios
regardlug Anna’s ealuation for special education services.
Scenario 1
The participants at the IEP team meeting gathered around the princip
al’s
conference table on Friday at 8 am. After introductions were quickl
y
made, Ms. Denman, the special education administrator, began the
meet
ing: “As we know. Anna was referred for a special education evalua
tion on
January 15. We are here today no review the results of the evaluation
that
was completed, determine if Anna is eligible for special educat
ion ser
ices, and appropriately plan for Anna in school Ms. Liu. you
have been
Anna’s teacher this ear and you initiated the referral for special
educa
lion. Would on please tell us how Anna has proressed in your
class this
year?”
Ms. Liu answered. “There is only so much I can do with Anna
in th”
classroom. She constantly struggles with reading. In 3rd grade.
students
ire expected to complete independent tasks using reading, but
Anna
iust can’t complete the assignments because of her poor reading
ability.
She turns in assignments partially completed and doesn’
t write iii
cursive. When I ask her if she needs help, she says she doesn’
t need any
thing. In reading class, we are beginning to read a novel. Studen
ts take
murns reading aloud. I try to avoid putting Anna on the
spot to read
iloud because she stumbles omer most of the words. I just
can’t give her
in sc
you 1
Mr.
resul
–
I
in sd
ifrade
and c
rnarz
tered
Child
tlw lo
sion.
Anna
dhk r
indvi
lug ri
and 01
averat
tormir
IS no s
achiev
learns,
V
Ms [)i
ing di
4V
Anna
g ard
‘ipal’s
iickly
meeton on
r that
serbeen
duca
s this
n the
dents
Anna
ility.
Ic in
anytake
read
e hr
,
j
I
63
individual attention in reading with 25 other students in the class.
I think Anna needs help!”
Ms. Denman said. “Thank you, Ms. Liu. Mr Stevens, you met with
Mrs. Kowaiski recently. Would you summarize your report?’
Mr. Stevens began. Yes. Mrs. Kowalski and I met last neck to dis
cuss Anna’s health and social history. Anna lives with her mother
Mrs. Kowaiski, in an apartment. There are no other relatives in th area
and Mrs. Kowaiski and Anna have lived alone since Anna’s father left the
family when Anna was 3 years old. Anna has not experienced any physical
problems out of the ordinary. She passed a recent hearing and vision test
At home, Mrs Kowaiski reports that Anna has become responsibk for a
number of household chores like setting the table, washing dishes. clean
ing her room, and sometimes cooking. Mrs. Kowaiski recently took a new
job and works long hours, often not getting home until after 6 p.m. She
reports that her new job is exhausting and that Anna must help around
the house. Homework is completed. but often Anna works by herself.
Mrs. Kowaiski reported that she is very concerned about Anna’s progress
in school, but that she doesn’t know how to help. Mrs Kowalski, would
you like to add anything else?’
Mrs. Kowaiski shook her head.
Ms. Denman moved to Mr. Kiena, the school psychologist, asking,
“Mr. Kiena, you evaluated Anna Would you summarize your test
results?”
Mr. Kiena began the report by summavizing Anna’s reported progress
in school as summarized b her teachers, present and previous and her
grades. She was currently failing her reading and language arts classes
and earning below average grades in other classes, Mr. Kiena then surn
marized his test results by sayimi. “I saw Anna 2 weeks ago and adminis
tered a standardized intelligence test. the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children. Fourth Edition. On this test. Anna’s overall ability was within
the low average range. On the four indexes assessed—verbal comprehen
sion, perceptual reasoning, working memory. and processing speed—
Anna performed within the low average range. There was no significant
difference between any of the scores. When I administered the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test. Second Edition. Anna was assessed in read
ing, mathematics, spelling, written expression, listening comprehension,
and oral expression. On all of these tests, Anna functioned within the low
average range. which is about 1 to 2 years below grade level. She is performing exactly as well as we would expect. given her overall ability. Then
is no significant discrepancy between her ability and her level of a adenric
achievement. Therefore. I do not think she has a learning disability. She
learns at a slower rate than other children.’
Ms. Liu was unhappy with the outcome of the assessment However,
Ms Denman clearly stated that a child could not be identified with learn
inc disabilities if a significant discrcpan v between acinevenient and
(4
ii
rnnat rv :csrnent
potential was not evident. Mrs. Kowalski did not say anything, The team
concluded by stating that Anna was not eligible for special education ser
vices and that the teacher would have to continue working with her s
best she could in reading.
Scenario 2
After the IEP team gathered around the conference table in the princi
pal’s office, introductions were made, but it was evident that the team
knew each other. Ms. Denman began the meeting by reviewing Anna’s
case: “As you know, we have been working with Anna since the end of
1st grade through our building-based support team. When we first
began working with her, Anna was given a series of assessments to
determine her functional level in reading. The team therm provided
targeted interventions in reading. tracking her progress. The team met
several times to review Anna’s progress and to change or alter interven
tions. In late November, it became apparent to the team that Anna was
not making adequate progress despite the interventions. Mrs. Kowaiski.
you have been working with the team since last year, and in November
you agreed that Anna needed further evaluation to determine if she
needed more intensive, individualized interventions. This is why we are
here today. We viIl review Anna’s progress, additional evaluations, and
determine if Anna needs more services. Mr. Kiena, would you discuss the
assessments and evaluations?”
Mr. Kiena began by talking about the initial assessments in reading
from last year: “Anna was initially administered a series of assessments.
called Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—DIBELS—toward
the end of 1st grade. rhe team working with her was concerned about her
reading achievement and skill development. Anna clearly had difficulty
with oral reading fluency. nonsense word fluency, and phonemic segmen
tation fluency. As a team, we determined several intensive reading inter
ventions, using phonemic awareness and phonics as the target skills
needed. We recommended a 6-week summer school program in reading
and then continued interventions during 2nd grade. While there was some
improvement noted in phonemic awareness and basic phonics skills,
Anna still struggles in her reading class. Anna continues, despite Ihe best
efforts from the team, to experience considerable difficulty in reading flu
ency Our team, including Mrs. Kowaiski, worked very well together on
behalf of Anna.”
Ms. Liu continued. “Mrs. Kowaiski and I continued working as
members of the team to help Anna in reading this year. I completely
agree that Anna may he in need of more intensive assistance. She really
works well within the classroom. hut I think more intensive assistance
in reading might make a difference. Mrs. Kowaiski. do you have anything to add?”
65
Anna
team
er
er
)flflcl
tea
nina
f ‘S
‘of
n
ie
ntfl
dS
a1ski
in b er
S e
are
,,and
sc th e
a d’tug
iens,
‘di
.ither
icult3
lmen
interskills
ading
some
,kills.
est
g flu
er on
rig as
letel
really
tance
any-
Mrs. Kowaiski began, l rallv appreciate the support that the teach
ers have given to Anna. As you know, I work long hours at a new job and
1 don’t often get home until at least 6 p.m. Anna has learned to become
more independent. I do try every evening to work with her in reading.
even if it is just for 10 minutes. However in 3rd grade. I can sce that it is
more difficult for her to keep up with the class. I agree that shc needs
more help.
Other team members reported updated information about Anna’s
progress. including psychological assessments that showed Anna’s over
all ability to be within the low average range and achierement assess
titems that were consistent with her abilities. Mr. Stex ens. also a membet
of the support team. reviewed an update of the family and health histot,
including a recent vision and hearing screening which Anna passed
The learn consensus was to provide Anna with a higher intensit
level of services, based on her individual needs in reading. This meant
that Anna was eligible Ion special education services under the label
learning disabilitr The team wrote an individualized eduation pro
gram Ion Anna that included continuatton of previous in-classroom inter
ventions and they added the services of the special education teacher.
Mr. Scott. for individualized reading instruction Mr. Scott would work
with Anna daily withm the classroom to support her readmg and also
see Anna outside of the c1asroom in a very small group for intensive.
specialized reading instruction. The team agreed to track Anna’s progress
weekly and communicate with Mrs. Kowalski frequently. The team would
meet formally to review Anna s progress in May. Mrs. Kowalski signed an
inlbrmed consent for Anna to receive the services and expressed her
appreciation to the team.
“
Legal Issues
i. Describe the basis used for making the eiigibilit decision in
scenario 1, then scenario 2 To what extent was each eligibility
decision legal according to IDEA?
2. Describe the assessments used in each scenario. To what extent
was each evaluation full, individuali7ed, and comprehensive?
Other issues
1. Why wasn’t Anna eligible for learning disabilit services in thc fit si
scenario? Why was Anna eligible for learning disability services in
the second scenario?
2. Discuss the definition of ser’ere discrepancy and response to
iiitemention and tell how each contnbuted to making the eligibility
decision in each scenario.
cL
)nmcnt
h a p
in the
Fiowdo
e r
9
Due Process
CASE 9.1
Darnell
iool on
opping
Major issue: Discipline
Secondary issue: Free appropnate public education (FAPE
)
goals.
;ure to
Characters
Latrina Duffin, parent
Darnell Duffin, 5th-grade child with learning disability
John Rhoads. attorney for parent
Lynn Gleason, principal
“This should never have happened, Larrina Duffin tearful
ly said to John
Rhoads. her attorney. “They took my baby out of school. to jail—a
nd made
him clean toilets!’
Mr. Rhoads said. “I know you are very upset, Ms. Duffin,
but let’s
start at the beginning. Please tell me exactly what happened.”
Ms. Duffin regained her composure and then told
her story:
‘1 received a telephone call on March 10 in the afterno
on from Ms.
Gleason, the principal. She told me that Darnell was disrupt
ive. He was
already gone when she called me. They took him away in
a police car arid
the police didn’t call me or anything. They didn’t even ask
my permission
to remove Darnell from school property! I don’t remember seeing
this in
the school handbook—that they will use this kind of discipl
ine. I picked
up Darnell at the police station and he said he was scared
and thought
they were taking him to jail. Then they made him clean toilets
and mop
floors! Darnell has a learning disability and is not a bad
kid. He just
learns at a slow pace and gets frustrated. They keep trying
to tear down
his character. The pnncipai told me Darnell wouldn’t look at her
when she
was talking to him, so she punished him by calling the police.
Darnell has
had panic attacks and nightmares since this inciden
4 The principal
Diucess
90
suspended him after this happened, then told me at an IEP meeting that
he couldn t come back to school this year She said that the school would
provide tutoring at home, but the tutor has only been to my house one
time. This whole incident is just abuse by the school district.”
Mr. Rhoads took detailed notes as Ms. Duffin talked. He then asked
clarifying questions about the incident. Ms. Duflmn handed him a 4-inch-thick
stack of school records. Mr. Rhoads assured Ms. Duffin that he would take
the case. After reviewing the records, he drafted a letter to the school district
requesting a due process hearing. After both parties agreed to waive a resolu
tion meeting and the school district would not agree to mediation, the date for
the hearing was set and preparations were made for prospective witnesses.
The due process hearing was held in the school district conference
room at 9 a.m. on April 11. Part of the direct examination of Lynn
Gleason, principal, by John Rhoads, attorney for the parent, follows.
Wi: Rhoacis: Ms. Gleason, would you please state your full name, your
relationship to Darnell, and your qualifications for the record?
Ms. Gleason: Yes, my name is Lynn Gleason, and I am the principal of
Lincoln Elementary School. where Darriell attends school. I have been
a principal for 5 years and I have a bachelor’s degree in elementary
education with a masters degree in educational administration. I am
certified to teach elementary grades through 6th grade and to be a
building principal at the elementary. middle, and high school levels.
.Ii: Rhoads: Ms. Gleason. how many times has Darnell been suspended
this school year and for what offenses?
Ms. Gleason: Darnell has been very disruptive in school, He constantly
disrupts the learning process. And
Mi: Rhoads: Ms. Gleason, how many times has Darnell been suspended
2
this year
Ws. Gleason: I think about 26 times.
Wr Rhoads: And how many days has Darnell been out of school as a
result of the suspensions?
Ms. Gleason: About 30 days.
Mr Rhoads: Please tell us what Darnell did to deserve suspensions
totaling 30 school days.
Ms. Gleason (as she flips through suspension notices): Dl just read these to
engaging in ver
you—Eating candy in class after being told to stop.
pushing another
bal wordplav with other student in the classroom.
throwing
student on the playground… talking back to the teacher.
refusing to complete assignments
books in the classroom
(Ms. Gleason reads the complete list.)
Mr Rhoads: Ms. Gleason, are you aware that Darnell has a disability and
is placed in a special education classroom for the majority of his
school day?
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
nc Proceseeting that
hool would
house one
then asked
—inch-thick
would take
iool district
ye a resolu
the date for
7tnesses.
conference
n of Lynn
ilows.
iarne. your
ord?
n’incipal of
I have been
elementary
ation. I am
nd to be a
nol levels.
suspended
constantl
suspended
chool as a
I spension S
ad these to
ging iii ver
ng another
throwing
S…
ability and
)ritv of his
Darneil
91
Ms. Gleason: Yes, of course. I attended several IEP meetings on Darnell,
and I know that he has a learning disability.
Mr Rhoads: Ms. Gleason. would you read the present levels of perlhr
mance on Darndll’s IEP?
Ms Gleason (reading). Darnell has attention deficit hyperactixu disordci,
resulting in impulsive and inattentive behavior. He sometimes does
not follow adult instructions and talks out of turn in class. In addi
tioii, Darnell functions approximately 3 years below grade level in
reading. writing, and mathematics. He has difficult sounding out
words using phonetic skills, but can write simple sentences.
although spelling is usually incorrect. He can solve 2-digit by 2 digit
addition and subtraction problems, but is unable to remember mul
tiplication facts to 10.
Mr Rftoads: Thank you Now, were you present when Darnell’s behavior
management plan was written to address his behavior?
Ms. Gleason: No. I was out of the building that day, but I am aware of
the plan.
Mr Rhoads: Were you present at the manifestation determination meeting
held on Februan 25?
Ms. Gleason: Yes. I was present and l agreed that Darnell’s behavior was
related to his disability
Mr Rhoads: Ms. Gleason, tell me what you understand to be the rule
about suspension of a child with a disabiliri.
Ms. Gleason: I don’t know about a rule. but I always thought a child
could be suspended 10 days. However if a child continually mis
behaves, I feel that I have the right to protect the learning environ
ment for other children in the building. I don’t think I did anything
wrong
Mr Rhoads: Ms. Gleason. please tell us what happened on the day of the
behavior incident when the police were contacted.
Ms. Gleason: Darnell was sent to my oflice from his classroom with a note
that he was making fun of another student during reading class.
I talked to Darnell. and he laughed at me. I then told him to look at
me when I talked to him. He blatantly refused. I was verv angry with
Darnell, and I decided to take an extreme measure by contacting the
police. I asked Lt Howard Eads to come to the building and try to
teach Darnell a lesson in how to behave. We have an informal agree
ment with Lt. Eads that if I make a request. he will take the child to
the police department for an “in-station adjustment” program. Part of
the in-station adjustment is to require the student to perform corn
munitv service. The community service in Darnell’s case was to clean
some toilets and mop the floor. I thought this would teach Darnell a
good lesson because nothing I did in the building was making any
difference.
Due Pr
rs
I egal Issues
1 List legal errors on the part of the school district and tell why each
is an error.
2. Describe the process of the due process hearing. Tell what hap
pened first, second, and so forth. Did the district follow the correct
legal process from the information given?
3. Describe the strategy used by Mr. Rhoads when questioning
Ms. Gleason. Why do you think he asked these particular questions?
Other Issues
1. Is it appropriate for the police to become involved in this case? Why
or why not? In what circumstances should the police become
involved in the discipline of the school?
2. Describe what could have been done to avoid this due process
hearing.
Acti. ity
You are Darnell’s special education teacher and are very frustrated with
Darnell’s behavior as described in the due process hearing, Develop an
appropriate behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for Darnell that would tar
get specific undesirable behax lors and avoid excessive suspensions from
school.
_____
CASE 10.2 Maria
Major issue: Individualized education program (IEP)
Secondary issue: Free appropriate public education (FAPE)
Characters
Maria Koichenko, kindergarten child with a disability
Kate Koichenko, parent of Maria
Max Feldon, school social worker
Ms. Koichenko picked up the telephone as it rang a second time and said,
“Hello.”
“Ms. Koichenko? This is Max Feldon. the school social worker.
I called to talk with you about Maria’s progress.”
Ms. Koichenko, not expecting this phone call, answered, “Yes, Mr.
Feldon, what do you want to discuss?”
Mr. Feldon stated, “Ms. Kolchenko, as you know, I was unable to
attend Maria’s recent IEP meeting 3 weeks ago because I was out of the
district on that day, [know the IEP team decided to keep Maria in the reg—
ular education kindergarten with support from the special education
teacher, an individual aide, speech language services, and the services of
the social worker, After working with Maria for 3 weeks, I really don’t
think she n …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
