Court Case Study Summary

After meeting with our Director of Special Services, I conducted hours of my own research to determine which court cases most directly impact the CSI learning issue at Colonial Road School. He provided me with numerous cases to review. The following is a summary of the cases I selected as most relevant to our learning issue, along with a reflection for each case.

N.S. o/b/o W.W. v. Newark Board Of Education

In this case, the parents paid for a neuropsychological report to be conducting for their child, which determined that the child had ADHD. The district held a Child Study Team meeting and determined that the student did not need to be evaluated for special education services (general education support was provided, and the student did

show improvement). The parent felt that the district should have conducted an evaluation. The district did not conduct an evaluation because the general education support being provided was helping the student, and therefore the parent could not request an independent evaluation.

The court determined that, just because the district was providing general education support to the child, these interventions do not eliminate the parent’s right to get an independent evaluation for their child. In addition, I&RS must be provided to aid students in general education, and “may be provided for students who have been determined to need special education programs and services.”

This determination shows that services provided in a general education setting may be given to supplement, but not preclude, special education services. At Colonial Road School, CSI was not always offered to students that were determined to need a higher level of special education services, as it was reserved for those struggling only with basic skills. Parents in our district are very well-aware of the laws that protect them, and often take their children for independent evaluations. Our district makes every effort to support all students, and errs on the side of evaluating too many students, rather than not enough. If a parent requests services, they are usually given them for their child. Parents often do not want the type of services that are recommended, but feel comfortable with their student being in the CSI program. To avoid legal conflict, students are often admitted into CSI when it may not be the best placement for them.

Solanco School District (PA) – Section 504

In this case, a child suffered from a seizure disorder and was never evaluated by the school district to see if accomodations could be made to allow the child to attend public school. The parents provided private tutoring services for the child for 10 years, and then enrolled in a charter school. It was determined that the district should have conducted an evaluation for Section 504 accomodations for this child and therefore violated Section 504 and deprived the student of FAPE.

This case tells us that, regardless of whether or not a student is enrolled in our district, we have the responsibility of finding the child and trying to accommodate them however possible to provide them with FAPE.

In Franklin Lakes, I recognize that we evaluate children consistently, even when their parents are not supportive or refuse services. Children must still be evaluated, and every effort must be made to provide them with services that will help them to succeed. As far as CSI specificially, often a child is evaluated, but the parent refuses specific services. We must then offer them the next tier below, usually CSI, until the parent agrees on some form of support for the child. If the parent refuses all forms of special services, then we do our best to differentiate instruction in the general education classroom, and continue to evaluate and communicate with the parent regarding the services our evaluations show would most help the child. The amount of time spend evaluating, monitoring, and communicating with parents, is reflective of not only our desire to help each child in the best way possible, but what our duty is under the

law.

V.M.

o/b/o B.M. v. Sparta Township Bd. Of. Education

The district court found that the Sparta School District utilized the discrepancy model as the only way of determining if a child had a specific learning disability. The district denied services to the child. The court ruled that, when determining eligibility for special education, a district must consider “all of its assessments of the child….and careful, documented information concerning the child’s health and background.”

This case shows that not only must multiple sources of assessment data be used to determine which children have learning disabilities, but the sources and related data must be properly documented. At Colonial Road School, we take numerous precautions to involve as many data sources as possible when determining which children are eligible for special education. Data is organized, documented, and presented to parents in an appropriate and informative way. It is stressed which assessments must be included and considered when evaluating children for special services.

Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education -

2013

This was a more recent case that, although it didn’t occur in New Jersey, it is relevant to issues pertaining to special education in my district. Here, the school district was found guilty of violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act due to holding an IEP meeting without the child’s parent. The student was 18 years old, and was diagnosed with autism at an early age. The parent attempted to reschedule to IEP meeting because he couldn’t attend the original date. The school held the meeting without the parent, and was found guilty due to not making sufficient enough efforts to include the parent, as is required by the IDEA.

In Franklin Lakes, it is made very clear that parents must be involved throughout the I&RS process, and must be active participants in determining the education plan and services offered to their children. This case is relevant, because it shows that parent participation and input must be actively sought out, and therefore respected. When it comes to CSI, the offering of these services are now discussed at I&RS meetings with parents. Parents are given the option of providing CSI services for their children, even if the school determines that the child needs more intensive services.

*Parents seem to have significant control over the services that are implemented for their children, and it is apparent that the results of these cases have a direct influence on the way in which these support service related decisions are made. Our CSI student learning issue involves the challenge that CSI teacher face with having students in their classes that were recommended for more intensive services, in the same classroom as students needing much less support. The fact that parents in the district have been refusing more intense special education services at a higher rate, and are then offered CSI as the next option, is a contributing factor to our learning problem. These cases shed light on why the district must offer students services in the best way possible, while respected what the parents want, and don’t want, for their children.