Special Education Scenarios 1

Special Education Scenarios

Danica Jones
EDU 2410
Salt Lake Community College
 Special Education Scenarios 2

The Scenario: Kristy is in the tenth grade. She has been in Special Education since she was in
the second grade. Kristys family is very supportive and advocates often for their daughter.
Kristy currently has a general education teacher who will not adhere by her IEP requirements.
Kristys parents have requested she be placed in a classroom with a teacher who will be willing
to work with their daughter. The principal has informed Kristys parents that if they do not
discontinue asking for such unrealistic favors, Kristy will be dropped from Special Education
services.

Applicable Law:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B establishes:
every student is entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE)
education and services for children with disabilities must be provide in the least restrictive
environment (LRE)
Input of the child and their parents must be taken into account in the education process

Legal Ramifications:
The principal and school teacher are not complying with an established IEP and under IDEA are
not providing FAPE or considering the input of the parents. It would be helpful to know the
specifics of the IEP that are not being followed to better understand the severity or validity of the
schools negligence.

My response: From what I know of the situation, the school has reacted in an inappropriate way
to Kristys parents request. As a condition of IDEA, the input of the parents must be taken into
account. The school may be dealing with high student teacher ratios which could make moving
Kristy difficult, but the school has an obligation to provide a FAPE and if the general education
teacher is unwilling to follow the IEP then it is reasonable for the parents to expect a change to
be made. It is also not appropriate for a teacher to refuse to follow an IEP. It would be fair for the
parents to request mediation. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the principal to threaten the
family with a loss of services for Kristy because of their request. Services are not determined by
the principal and do not typically change without an assessment and IEP meeting. The parents
are entitled to request the change in teacher under IDEA and because the current teacher is not
adhering to the IEP. If I were in the situation I would definitely look at the provisions in the IEP
 Special Education Scenarios 3

that were not being followed. If I were an administrator I would also look at what disciplinary
actions may be necessary in the case of the teacher. The Utah State Office of Education Special
Education Services lays out three mechanisms for solving disputes:
1. Mediation
2. Formal IDEA State Complaint
3. Due Process Hearing Complaint
I would hope to be able to address the issues of both Kristys parents and that of the school in
mediation. In the future I would try to avoid placing students with IEPs in this teachers class or
make a serious case about getting rid of the teacher for insubordination.

Applicable Case Law:

1. In the case of Doe v. Withers, a civil suit was brought against a teacher, principal and
superintendent by the parents of child Doeor D.D. asserting that their failure to follow an
established IEP damaged their sons future. The history teacher, Withers, refused to to make
accommodations for D.D. to have his exams administered orally despite repeated notices and
directives regarding D.D.s handicap and his need for oral testing Michael Withers refused to
comply and administered approximately nine (9) more written tests to Plaintiff D.D., most of
which Plaintiff D. D. failed because of his handicap. (Doe V. Withers 1993.)
1.1. As a result of the failing grade D.D. was not allowed to participate in his extracurricular
activities.
1.2. The court agreed that the Withers refusal to follow accommodations in the IEP was the sole
determining factor in D.D.s failing history grade which appeared on his permanent school
record.
1.3. The court ultimately awarded the family $60,000 in damages.

2. Hendrick Hudson Dist. Board of Ed. v. Rowley set a standard for FAPE by examining two
conditions in relation to IDEA:
2.1. The basic floor of opportunity is instead, as the courts below recognized, intended to eliminate
the effects of the handicap, at least to the extent that the child will be given an equal opportunity
to learn if that is reasonably possible. ( Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley)
2.2. Also, the students IEP must have substantive content.
3. In the case of Piazza v. Florida Union Free School District, the parents of Nicholas Piazza sued
the school district under IDEA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for failure to implement Piazzas
IEP. The student lived with spinal muscular atrophy and his condition sometimes confined him to
 Special Education Scenarios 4

bed. Piazzas IEP called for a combination of home and school instruction based on his needs.
The IEP was not specific and the complaint the parents had was about the timing and
infrequency of the home instruction. The parents also alleged that their son was denied a LRE
when they school failed to provide accommodations for science lab, field trips, assemblies and
extracurricular activities.
3.1. The courts decided that the Piazza complaints did not fall under failure to implement because
there were attempts made to implement home instruction but the IEP was not specific enough
regarding frequency.
3.2. It was also decided that the statute of limitations had expired for the instances involving science
lab, field trips, assemblies and extracurricular activities.
4. Van Duyn v. Baker School District further led to giving schools some leeway when interpreting
IEPs. The parents claimed that the IEP was not being followed and that it had been changed
without their knowledge. The school had not actually changed the IEP, it had chosen to interpret
it differently than the parents thought was appropriate.
5. JP ex rel. Peterson v. County School Bd. Hanover involved parents who were not satisfied with
the IEP the school had established for their student. It was found that the school was unable to
meet the students needs and the district paid for his enrollment at a private school for autistic
children.

References
Individuals with Disability Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (1997). Retrieved from
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). Section 504 and IDEA Comparison Chart
http://www.ncld.org/disability-advocacy/learn-ld-laws/adaaa-section-504/section-504-idea-
comparison-chart
Utah State Office of Education Special Education Services. Dispute Resolution Manual.
http://www.schools.utah.gov/sars/DOCS/law/dresolutionmanual.aspx
Doe v. Withers, 20 I.D.E.L.R. 422 (1993).
Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690
(1982).
Piazza v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 777 F. Supp. 2d 669 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker School Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007).
JP ex rel. Peterson v. County School Bd. Hanover, 516 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2008).