Presented By:
Jamie Carpenter
Greg Hutchings
Bronwyn MacFarlane
Holly Richard
Power Point
Presentation On Gender in Education
Travis Burns
Antoine Hickman
Patricia Kern
Shelly Nowacek
Power Point
Presentation On Special Education
Webmaster:
Jamie Carpenter
Case Scenarios
Special Education Case Scenarios
What does the law require?
What would you do as an administrator?
1. Case Scenario: Jimmy is a 14 year old student who receives 3 hours each week of LD services for educational deficits in reading and math. Jimmy has never exhibited any behavioral issues warranting a FBA and BIP or behavioral intervention strategies in his IEP. The student is involved in a serious incident justifying a long-term removal. The school personnel are convinced that this is an isolated incident that most likely will never be repeated by Jimmy. Jimmy's teachers further say that he has no behavioral issues or concerns in their classrooms, and indeed, has a history of exemplary behavior. The behavior in this incident is not connected to his disability.
Question for case 1: Is the school required to develop a BIP for Jimmy?
Answer: Yes. The regulations do not provide an exception to this requirement, which is based on the standard that the student's learning is impeded by the disciplinary action. Therefore, the regulations require schools to develop a plan that addresses the behavior that resulted in the long-term removal. The team may determine that the behavior evidenced in this incident impacts his learning but is not related to his disability. The team should note this fact on the BIP. The team then needs to identify the behaviors, general description of strategies, and supports.
2. Case Scenario: Betsy is 16 years old with a specific learning disability. She receives 2 hours of instruction from the teacher of the learning disabilities for language arts each day and 1 hour of speech therapy each week. Betsy has previously been suspended for up to 10 school days during this school year. The assistant principal has directed Betsy to ISS for three days due to class disruption. The ISS paraprofessional directs to do her homework and complete her assigned class work. Betsy never leaves ISS. Two other students with disabilities are also assigned to ISS that week. As per school policy, lunch is brought to the ISS room. Betsy's mother complains that Betsy is not receiving FAPE, has been disciplined improperly, and threatens to sue the assistant principal.
Questions for case 2: Do the three days in ISS count as days of removal? Has Betsy been receiving FAPE in ISS?
Answer: No, Betsy had not been receiving FAPE in ISS and yes, the three days count as three days of removal. Betsy was not allowed access to the special education services listed in her IEP. She was denied access to the special instruction in the language arts and she was not allowed to attend her speech therapy session. In addition, she was not able to participate with non-disabled peers as listed in her IEP.
3. Case Scenario: Ben is an eight year-old student with a severe learning disability and significant ADHD. Ben has not incurred any disciplinary action during this school year or in previous school years. His IEP's present level of performance identifies that Ben takes Ritalin; however, he still displays significant impulsivity on occasion.
As part of an art project and in an effort to build Ben's self-esteem, Ben's teacher approves his request to bring a model car kit to school to build during class. When Ben removes the contents of the package, the teacher sees that the kit contains a 3-inch hobby knife. She contacts the assistant principal who initiates procedures to have Ben expelled. The IEP team determines that there was no manifestation link between the incident and Ben's disability. Ben's parents request a due process hearing.
Question for case 3: What issues need to be considered in this case?
Answer: Although we do not have the full benefits of reviewing Ben's educational record or having been present during the discussions on manifestation determination, we may wish to examine the manifestation determination decision. The new regulations detail the responsibility of the team to review all available relevant information, as well as the appropriateness of Ben's behavior and disability to: 1) understand the impact and consequences of his behavior, and 2) control his behavior. In other words, the team must decide whether Ben, despite his LD and ADHD, understood the consequences of his behavior and was capable of controlling his behavior.
In this case, the first finding may be easily supported if Ben knew that bringing a knife to school would lead to expulsion. This should be an easy finding to establish. The determination of whether Ben could control his actions is more difficult. The team may benefit from expert information regarding the disability, particularly the ADHD. In his excitement to bring the model kit to school, Ben perhaps did not equate a hobby knife with a weapon, if indeed he even looked at the contents of the package. If the behavioral component of Ben's IEP was appropriately reviewed and the team reviewed documentation and information that Ben kept his impulsivity under control to the point that he could make rationale judgments, then perhaps this IEP team made the right decision. Otherwise, the link between Ben's disability and the incident is established.