Exceptional Student Education, Essay Example

The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case was the first right to education lawsuit that aimed to overturn a decision that stated that mentally disabled children are not required to have equal access to education. The two main findings in this case were that all students should be protected by law without discrimination on the basis of disability and that free public education will be offered to mentally disabled children until the age of 21, although exceptions could be made if the mental state of the individual is lower than expected for their given age.

Students who were eligible for Exceptional Student Education under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act passed in 1975 included mentally handicapped children who are between the ages of 3 and 21. The requirements of this act do not apply to gifted students.

Under ESE, parents of mentally disabled students who attend public schools will be provided with a free education funded by the federal government. In addition, these students will receive one free meal per school day.

A regular education teacher is included in the IEP (Individual Education Plan) team because he or she has knowledge about the curriculum that is being taught in the regular education classroom, has an increased understanding of the aids and tools that could be made available to the student to assist learning and improvement towards the goal of re-entering regular education, and to provide strategies that may help improve the students behavior if this has been an issue.Other roles that the regular education teacher could play as a part of this relationship includes advice as to how the child could track his or her progress towards education and behavior goals, continue to be involved in the process of the general curriculum, encourage the student to participate in extracurricular activities and evaluate the contribution of these activities towards the student’s success, and to be aware and form relationships with other children both with and without disabilities.

“Appropriate education” is defined under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It defines a free appropriate education as one that is provided by a public elementary or secondary school that includes both general and special education instruction in addition to related aids and services and ensures that these aids are being developed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities. However, there are limits to the needs that to be met according to this act. The needs that are required to be met for mentally disabled students are on the same level of the needs that are required to be met for regular education students so that children with disabilities aren’t given any unfair performance advantages over regular education children.

An “individual education plan” or IEP is a mandate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It helps children who are classified as disabled to determine individualized education goals. This includes an evaluation process to determine the needs of the student in addition to student/teacher meeting that discuss progress towards the goals. In addition, this process helps determine how the individual student learns and the educators will incorporate this process into his or her learning to achieve maximal results.

The Rowley case concerned a hearing impaired girl who was performing well academically but desired a sign language presenter to be available in all of her classes. The school claimed that she did not need one because she was performing well and was able to remain in regular education classes. When this case was taken to court, it was decided that denial of the sign language interpreter by the school was a violation of free appropriate public education.

In the Tatro case, the Supreme Court ruled that in cases where a student has a physical disability and requires medical services to attend school and does not require a medical professional beyond the level of nurse, the public school must provide the necessary medical service.

In Cedar Rapids v. Garret, The U.S. Supreme Court, the court decided that the public school was required to provide supportive services for a ventilator-dependent child. The public school initially refused to do so because they were concerned about the high cost of issuing this type of service. Ultimately, this agreed with the finding of the Tatro case because while one on one care of this sort is expensive, only a nurse is needed to ensure that the student receives the necessary care, and is therefore required for the school to manage.

In Honing v. Doe, the Supreme Court case made a ruling on the acceptable limits of disciplining students with disabilities. The court decided that students could not be suspended for behavioral infractions if these infractions are related to their disability. However, there is an exception to this rule if the dangerous behavior involves guns, drugs, or serious bodily injury.

Schools must hold “manifestation determinationhearings” when they need to determine whether a student’s inappropriate action or behavior is a part of their disability. This determination is completed as a part of an IEP meeting.

A school must develop a “behavior intervention plan” (BIP) for a student after a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) has been given. The behavior intervention plan describes the behavior that is causing the problem, in addition to broad and detailed guesses as to why the behavior could be occurring. In addition, intervention strategies should be developed to reinforce positive behavior and allow the student to understand when the negative behavior is being exhibited and how to stop this from happening. The BIP is issued mainly when these behaviors interfere with the student’s ability to learn, when they interfere with the classmates’ ability to learn, when the student or classmates are in potential danger as a consequence of the behavior, and a determination has been made that the behavior has a relationship with the student’s disability.

The “least restrictive environment” or LRE is one in which the disabled student has the ability to be educated with non-disabled students in the same classroom. This maximizes the learning potential of the disabled student in the sense that they are being offered all of the same resources that the regular education students are. However, the disabled student will still be provided with learning aids and tools as needed.

“Related services” are those that special education students may require that do not directly pertain to the classroom and learning experience. Some of the services that may be necessary for this group of students that is unique from regular education students includes transportation, developmental, corrective, medical, and counseling services.

In Schaeffer v. Weast (2005), the parents of a disabled child sued their son’s public school district because they believed that the IEP developed for him was not adequate. It was found that since IDEA does not state whether the parents or the school system bears the burden of proof, the group that initiates the suit is responsible for providing the burden of proof.

For public school principals and teachers, “Response to Intervention” (RTI) means that early assistance was provided to students who showed early signs of disability or difficulty learning. This process includes frequent measurement of the students’ progress in addition to interventions that may restore or enhance the child’s ability to learn. It is essential for both public school principals and teachers to be involved in this process because the RTI follows the assumption that the educational system can effectively teach all children, and the accuracy of this statement is dependent upon all levels of leadership in the school.

In Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007), the issue at hand was whether parents should be allowed to represent the interest of their special needs child in court without the presence of an attorney. It was found that parents have a right to speak in interest of their children and will not be required to have a lawyer in order for cases to be heard. This issue also concerns the ability of parents of children who may not be able to afford a lawyer; since the Winkelmans were unable to afford a lawyer, they wanted to act as their own prosecution. The court initially stated that they require one for their case to be heard. Fortunately, this case overturned this requirement and parents are now allowed represent their children in court.