FAPE Cases journal

User Generated

xxnynss

Writing

Description

You should read the FAPE cases. (FAPE Cases journal file is attached)

After completing the reading Reflect on What are the legal issues of this case? How might things have gone differently? Is the school at risk? How/why?

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 needs the intensity of services planned. In addition, since I am only in the building one day a week, it is almost impossible to schedule Maria for the ,ervices.” Ms. Koichenko was surprised. “That’s interesting,” she said. Mr Feldon continued, “Maria is supposed to receive individual pu1l out services on a weekly basis for the whole year, and I’m also supposed to work with her even’ week on an individual basis in the kindergarten classroom for the entire year. In addition, she comes with a group of kindergarten students to see me weekly for the entire school year. Ibis, I think, is not necessary and there is no way I can schedule all these services for one child, I really don’t think it is necessary for Maria to see me three different times each week,” Ms. Koichenko was feeling upset as she said. “Mr. F’eldon, do you have data to demonstrate that Maria does not need the social work ser vices to the extent planned by the IEP team?” l 06 Add Con Con Pur Sun In a and Soc Soc oc or’ Maria 107 Ms. Feldon answered. “Well, no. not exactly. I don’t keep that kind ot data. but based on mv professional opinion. Maria just doesn’t need the services,” Ms. Koichenko said, “Mr. Feldon. please give me the data to show that Maria does not need the srvices, and then we can talk about changing services, at the annual review that will be scheduled in the spring.” The conversation ended quickly and Ms. Kolchenko wa upset. but decided not to pursue the issue with the school because an IEP me ting had not been held or scheduled, She decided that the social worker might have beeti having a frustrating da\. Just yesterday. Maria came home excited about her visit from Mr. Feidon in the kindergarten classroom. The next day. Ms. Kolehenko received the following conference sum mary from Mr. Feldon’ Conference Summary Conference date: October 10 I said. Yorker. s. Mr. ible to of the ie reg ration ices don I e I am tedule 1 Pu posed arten up of This. these to see o you c er- Student. Maria Kolchenko Parents name: Ms. Kate Kolchenko Address: 105 Bluff Drive Birth date March 6 Grade. Kindergarten Current placement’ Special Education Resource Conference participants’ Ms. Kolchenko, parent’ Mr Feldon social worker Purpose of conference: Phone contact to address the initiation and duration dates of the social work minutes in the IEP Summary: In a phone conference with Ms. Kolchenko. the decsion was made to change the initiation and duration dates of the social work minutes on Maria’s IEP The dates should read as follows: Social work direct individual pull-out: 20 minutes per session for 16 sessions; initiation 9/23 to 1/9 Social work group pull-out: 20 minutes per session at 27 sessions; initiation 9/23 to 5/5 Social work group push-in’ 20 minutes at 15 sessions’ initiation 1/9 to 5/5 Completed by: Max Feldon. school social worker ‘ . ‘ . . . Ms. Koichenko was furious! Just 3 weeks ago. an IEP team deter mined that Maria needed social work services along with speech and language services, an individual aide, and special education resource services. Everyone at the meeting agreed and an IEP was written. Ms. Koichenko wondered how the social worker could change an IEP based on an informal telephone onversation She thought that the I 108 Pai eat Participation parent was supposed to have input into the decisio ns, Why were the services included in the IEP 3 weeks ago now being withdr awn? In acidi iion. didn’t the social worker have to show data to substantiate a deci sion to take services away from Maria? How could there be data in just 3 weeks? Ms. Koichenko talked with her husband about the situatio n and they agreed that a letter should be written to the school distric t. Ms. Kolchenko drafted a letter and sent it to school the next day, with a copy to other administrators in the district. October 22 Dear Mr. Feldon. After receiving the Conference Summary you sent home with Maria. I have some questions. You told me that you are only availab le at the school one day a week and that it is difficult to schedu le 60 minutes of social work services on that limited schedule. Howev er, there was in abundance of data presented at the IEP meetin g held in September to document Maria’s needs for individual, small group. and push-in social work services. In lieu of any data that you have contrary to that presented at the meeting in September. I would feel uncomfortable withdrawing services at this time. I feel it is especially important to maintain the push-in services since it is Maria’s least restrictive environment. Therefore, I do not agree to your proposed changes. Additionally, I don’t feel our impromptu phone conversation could be considered a conference to address initiation and duration of social work services, Maria enjoys working with you and I feel that you are making a positive impact on her ability to be integrated into the kindergarten classroom. Thanks for rour hard work! Sinerlv, Ms Kate Kolchenko Cc: Principal: Special Education Administrator’ Superi ntendent Legal Issues 1. According to IDEA. descnbe the procedures for changing an IEP. To what extent did this social worker follow those proced ures? 2. Discuss the legal foundation of withdrawing service s based on the provider’s schedule. Why is this a problematic issue? I Mat
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.
Attached.

Running head: FAPE CASE JOURNAL

1

FAPE Case Journal
Name
Institution

FAPE CASE JOURNAL

2
FAPE Case Journal

The legal issue of concern is that Darnell has a disability and is often on a special
education classroom most of his school days and yet the school principal took him to a police
station to correct her behavior of not looking at her whe...


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags