Special Education Case Study Analysis

 

Pamela R. H. Bailey

 

George Mason University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Education Case Study Analysis

            Janelle, a sixth grade student, is having learning difficulties in school. This has been an ongoing issue with Janelle however her parents did not agree to services offered in the past. Recently Janelle’s father passed away resulting in a further withdraw of social and academic behaviors. Mother sought assistance and guidance from a developmental pediatrician to determine whether she needed to pursue the referral, evaluation and eligibility process for an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004) provide a guideline to school systems, protecting the rights of students and parents in the development of the IEP. Parents and children ages two through twenty-one are also assured to obtain a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in which they will receive life skills, obtain an education suitable to their needs, and to prepare for employment as stated in the IDEA Code of Federal Regulations (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.1, 2007) and the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children With Disabilities in Virginia (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-60(A), 2002).

            A Parent’s Guide to Special Education (Parent’s Guide, 2001) stated that there are five steps to develop an IEP: identify and refer, evaluate, determine eligibility, IEP, and reevaluate. The first four steps will be discussed with respect to Janelle throughout this paper.

Overview of Policies, Procedures, and Programs

Policies and Procedures

            Janelle had been receiving services in the elementary school setting as per a 504 plan implemented in the third grade however the transition to middle school and her doctor has suggested further accommodations may be necessary. The following is the required process stated in the Spotsylvania County Schools Special Education Handbook (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008):

§         A referral for evaluation (Form SE-1) must be filled out by and submitted to the Child Study Team (CST) Chairperson (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-52, 2002).

§         Office of Special Services, upon receipt of the referral, will begin the timeline to insure that the process is conducted in a timely and orderly manner.

§         Parents will receive a copy of the Parental Rights Brochure (Form SE-6), procedural safeguards, required by IDEA (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.504, 2007). The brochure is a description and explanation of all actions proposed and sources that will aid their understanding.

§         A Child Study Team in Janelle’s school will be formed and will include the Administrative designee (Chairperson), referring source, teacher, specialist, parent, and student if applicable.

§         The referring source prepares a list of interventions already attempted to help Janelle along with the resulting outcome as per the pre-referral intervention and monitoring required by IDEA (2004).

§         Teacher prepares the Educational Report Summary (SE-2) for CST.

§         Janelle’s mother and the team are invited to the CST meeting using the IEP.Online program. The meeting must be held within 10 business days from the date the referral is received.

§         The CST may recommend further assessments such as an Educational Assessment (SE-2), Observation (SE-10), Hearing Screening (SE-11), Medical, Socio-cultural, and Psychological Assessment (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.301, 2007; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-54, 2002). The assessments must comply with all evaluation procedures. Further remediation or intervention strategies may be suggested by the team and implemented; the team reconvening at a later date to discuss the outcomes. 

§         If the parent does not attend the CST meeting then they will be sent a letter notifying them of the Child Study Action (SE-8). Notice includes an overview of the evaluative procedures, the assessment strategies and tools that will be used to determine if the student has a learning disability, the assessment may be used in the development of the IEP, and that the student will be assessed in areas of the suspected disability (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.304, 2007).

§         The evaluation process must be completed within 65 business days from the date the referral was received however parental consent must be obtained prior to any assessments being conducted (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.300, 2007; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(a), 2007). Any existing data reviewed in the evaluation process does not need parental consent.

§         An eligibility committee reviews the results of the assessments to determine if Janelle is qualified to receive services (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-56(B), 2002). The eligibility document, the Criteria Reference Sheet, will list specific learning disabilities, reasons or justifications, behavioral affects on learning, medical issues affecting learning, gaps between achievement and the students ability, and any environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantages that will affect learning (Parent’s Guide, 2001). Janelle’s mother is invited to the meeting and will receive copies of all the assessments two days prior (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-56, 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.306, 2007).

§         The eligibility committee consists of the administrative designee, a person who has observed/evaluated Janelle, a specialist, one of Janelle’s teachers, and her mother (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-56, 2002).

§         The eligibility committee will determine if Janelle has one of the fifteen federally defined disabilities as defined in IDEA Regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.8, 2007) and if she requires services due to the effects of the disability on her ability to learn.

§         Specific learning disabilities are defined by IDEA Regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.309(a), 2007) and require additional member(s) to the team.

§         The team may use a research-based intervention model as part of the assessment and evaluation process when determining if Janelle has a learning disability instead of placing a lot of value on the difference between her achievement and ability as addressed in the “Quick recommendations and resources for use when implementing the provisions of IDEA 2004 (2005).

§         When Janelle is found eligible, the minutes of the meeting are forwarded to the person responsible in her school for facilitating the development of the IEP which must be completed within 30 calendar days (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(B)(2), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.323, 2007).

§         A Functional Behavioral Assessment and a Behavioral Intervention Plan may also be suggested due to Janelle’s actions in the classroom (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(v)(3)(i), 2007). If both are completed then Janelle may be eligible for counseling services.

Programs

            Various programs are offered for assistance to students like Janelle and her mother. A link between Special Services and the school social workers is a program called the Student Assistance Team (SAT) (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008). Concerns that may be addressed by SAT include work habits and behavior concerns. The SAT chair at each of the schools may be the principal, the guidance counselor, or a teacher. Parents need to inquire in the school office to make contact with the chair in order to begin the process of determining the actions SAT will implement and monitor. Many schools offer assistance such as after school tutoring or a special block of time (directed study) built into the schedule where students are flexibly grouped so that they might receive assistance in weak areas. The Parent Resource Center is a place where Janelle’s mother might receive guidance as well as obtain resources so that she might work with her daughter at home. The address and phone number for the Parent Resource Center are on the Spotsylvania County Schools website. Parents or teachers may contact the central office for information, talk with a special education instructor or to Special Services. Phone numbers and many locations are given in the Spotsylvania County Schools Special Education Handbook (2007-2008) or on the website (http://spotsylvania.k12.va.us).

            More specifically services for Janelle may include team taught classes as well as basic skills which may be a self contained class. Occupational therapy may still be useful due to her writing skills as well as remedial reading assistance. If Janelle has a Behavioral Intervention Plan she may receive counseling services. Her mother may also benefit from receiving or attending parent counseling and training sessions. All together there are many programs that Janelle and her mother may take utilize that are available in the county to all parents and within special services.

Legal Obligations to Identify and Educate Students with Disabilities

            The school district is obligated to identify and conduct a full and individual evaluation of Janelle as per Child Find (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-50, 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.125, 2007; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.111, 2007) and IDEA (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.300, 2007) which states that schools must locate, identify, and evaluate any student that might need special services. Methods to identify students include having school systems perform certain evaluations within 60 days of any student being enrolled in the system; screening for vision and hearing problems may also be conducted in the third, seventh, and tenth grade (Parent’s Guide, 2001). These initial evaluations do not require parental consent.  

Should Janelle’s mother refuse for her to be assessed when going through the evaluation process, the assessments would come to a halt (Parent’s Guide, 2001). The Parent’s Guide goes on to state that Special Services may need to go to due process or mediation in order for Janelle to be assessed. Mediation begins at the school level then proceeds to the central office, then on to the Virginia Department of Education.

            Legislation to aid students with special needs was first passed in Virginia in 1968 followed by the General Assembly expanding the law in 1972 (Parent’s Guide, 2001). Kern Alexander and M. Alexander (2005) discussed the cases and laws that led to IDEA 2004. One of the key cases, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth (1971; 1972), laid the foundation for future laws. Due process, equal protection, free appropriate pubic education, and the IEP process were all a result of PARC. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) expanded the results of PARC to include students with disabilities. PARC and Mills led to the introduction of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 followed by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975. EAHCA outlined FAPE, IEP’s, special education services, related services, and due process. The name was changed to Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1990. Since then IDEA has been revised in 1997 once more in 2004.

Individualized Education Program

Broad Purpose and State and Federal Statutes

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a document describing all services that are needed to meet the needs of a student with a disability (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008). The Spotsylvania County Special Education Handbook explains that the IEP is comprehensive, covers areas such as communication, socialization, perceptual-motor and gross-motor skills, self-help, behavior, academics, vocational and transitional services. The document is individualized for each student and represents the consensus of all members on the IEP Team. The language used on the IEP should be understandable to both professionals and the parents/guardians. All evaluations should be explained and jargon and acronyms avoided. The team developing the IEP must follow the guidelines specified in IDEA (2004) and the Regulations governing special education programs for children with Disabilities in Virginia (2002). Roncker v. Walter (1983) ruled that mainstreaming students was the ideal situation but that it was not for every child therefore the appropriate placement of the child in the least restrictive environment is one aspect that the team will discuss.

 The IEP Team

The IEP Team as outlined in IDEA (2004) must consist of the parent or guardian, administrative designee, special education teacher, and the general education teacher. Requested members may include Janelle, if appropriate (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(C), 2002). An adult service agency representative, a transportation department representative, a representative from the Early Childhood Special Education Office when applicable, and the student, if appropriate, are requested to attend and be a part of the IEP Team. Students sixteen years of age or older must be invited to attend (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(D)(2)(b), 2002). If the student elects not to then additional opportunities should be given to obtain his or her input into the service decisions and transition plan. Documentation of the attempts to get the student involved should be obtained (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(B)(2), 2007)

 IEP Key Components

            IEP.Online, a program used by Spotsylvania County Schools, includes all components required in an IEP however it is still the responsibility of the case manager or IEP chairperson to make sure the IEP is complete and in compliance (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008). Each IEP should include:

  • Identifying information such as name, address, date of birth, and student identification number (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008).
  • Present Level Of Performance (PLOP) is a written statement that explains how the child’s disability will effect his or her performance in the general education setting (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(1), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a), 2007). The narrative should contain recent information and be relative to the student as it is the foundation of the measurable goals. Health issues and concerns should be addressed in the PLOP.
  • All information needed to address the requirement for functional and academic performance needs to be included (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(1), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a), 2007). If available the previous years data collected from the measurable goals should be included along with any other state assessments, fully explained and written. Any weaknesses, academic and social, should be acknowledged. Progress student has made toward annual goals is reported along with how they were measured and how often they are be reported (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3), 2007).  
  • Dates of initiation and expiration of the IEP (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(6), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(7), 2007). Dates when the modifications will be implemented and how often they should be provided will be included.
  • Measurable goals and objectives should be developed using PLOP that can be reasonably attained during the course of one year (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(2), 2002; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(7), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(i), 2007). The goals are to state how student progress is to be measured and the criteria that will be used to aid the student in obtaining mastery of the content. All goals should be written in a general format, not subject specific.
  • Special Education Services should be listed first, including Behavior Support Program or Communication Disorder Program specifics (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(3), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)). Related services such as counseling, occupational therapy, and physical therapy should specify the length, frequency, and a beginning and ending date. 
  • Least restrictive environment is determined by the needs of the child so that the greatest appropriate amount of integration into the general education setting is implemented (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(4), 2002; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-64, 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a), 2007; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(5)).
  • State Assessment Program participation includes the Standards of Learning Assessment (SOL) (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(5), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(6). 2007). Students may have accommodations on the SOL Assessment if they are listed and utilized throughout the school year. However only the accommodations listed may be implemented in the testing situation. 
  • Accommodations listed that include any classroom modifications that are needed (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008).
  • Transition plan to be incorporated into the IEP by age 16 (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(9), 2002; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(F)(10), 2002; IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(7), 2007). 
  • Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008).

Sarah Reid, Middle School Coordinator, stressed that when filling out the IEP one must insure that all spaces are not left blank on IEP.Online to insure being in compliance with all laws (personal communication, October 10, 2007). Parents/guardians must be provided with a written description of all components of the IEP that are to be considered during the IEP meeting along with notification of the meeting (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(a), 2007). An IEP Meeting Agenda is also used in Spotsylvania County Schools so that the topics for compliance that are to be discussed and considered will be presented in an orderly fashion (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008).

Placement Decisions

            The IEP Teams in Spotsylvania County use a Criteria Reference Sheet that contain the definition of eligibility for each type of disability and the local criteria to assist in the placement decision making process (SCS Sped Handbook, 2007-2008). When the decision as to the type of disability is made the IEP Team must justify their choice by stating the criteria and the description of the disability in the Eligibility Minutes. Once this evaluation is completed the team must decide the least restrictive environment (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-64(A), 2002; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-64(C)(1)(a), 2002) that will enable Janelle to obtain a free appropriate education (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-62(A), 2002) that meets her needs. Janelle’s placement needs to be reviewed annually, based on her IEP, and in her home school when possible (Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-64(C)(1)(b), 2002; Regulations . . . in Virginia, 8 VAC 20-80-64(C)(1)(c), 2002). The Oberti Factors (Oberti ex rel. Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District, 1993) need to also be applied to insure appropriate placement. The factors are a three-part test that guide the placement to insure that reasonable efforts are made to accommodate students in the regular classroom, supplementary aids to insure that the special education classroom is comparable to the general education class, and any negative effects of being in an inclusion class are all considered when placement is decided.  

Summary and Discussion of Ethical and Practical Considerations

            Teachers recognize that every student has the right to a free appropriate public education as stated in federal legislation, Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142 (1975) and IDEA (2004). The problem arises when a teacher and a special education teacher must work together, planning, providing instruction, maintaining discipline, and assessing students. The regular classroom teacher is not accustom to sharing the responsibilities and the awards which may lead to the special education teacher being treated like an aid. Grading is another issue that will sometimes arise. When a student is taking a course there are standards that he or she must learn and be assessed according to the Standards of Learning (SOL) for Virginia. The teacher may feel that modifications of assignments and assessments may not seem “fair” to the other students. A student may have the accommodation that they are to use calculators for instance on all assignments but the remainder of the students have to complete the work without the technology. The issue of fairness seems to become more prevalent as the student progresses into high school.   

            No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a reform movement to close achievement gaps for students at risk. AYP (Adequate Year Progress), the accountability system for NCLB, includes students with disabilities as one of the categories to be assessed. Pressure on the teachers for students to perform and pass all of the SOL assessments has created an enormous amount of stress. Meeting the needs of a student with a disability can be overwhelming as the teacher must provide differentiation of concepts that are tailored to one student. The teacher may have several students with IEP’s which adds to the frustration.

Teachers that utilize collaboration with their co-teacher and other resource specialists find that they develop a divide and conquer attitude. Administrators offering assistance with learning and facilitating best practice methodologies is necessary as teachers provide for special needs. Freedom to be creative with their approaches and to have a trusted individual that is a good listener to their frustrations and a sounding board for their ideas are important to special education and general education teachers.   

Conclusion

            Janelle, with the support of her mother, will be able to receive assistance by having modifications made in the classroom that will aid her learning. Placement in team taught classes will provide Janelle with additional help and provide the teacher with additional aid in meeting her needs. It is frustrating to want to help a child and not having the support needed to do so. Those working with Janelle will now have the support with the implementation of the IEP. Along with academic support Janelle will also benefit from the Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) and counseling. Together the IEP and the BIP will address her academic and social needs. The goal for the all involved is for Janelle to become a productive citizen, capable to taking care of and supporting herself. IDEA (2004) and Regulations governing special education programs for children with Disabilities in Virginia (2002) are the key pieces of legislature that guides the various teams in the process to obtain student success.


References

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (2005). American Public School Law (6th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson West.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(b) (1975).

IDEA Code of Federal Regulation. (Revised July 1, 2007). 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq.

Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

No Child Left Behind Act, 115 U.S.C. § 1425 (2001).

Oberti ex rel. Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District, 995 F.2d 1204,

1207 (3rd Cir. 1993).

A parent’s guide to special education (2001). Virginia Department of Education,

Division of Instructional Support Services. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Sped/parent_guide.pdf

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, 334 F. Supp. 1257

(E.D. Pa. 1971), and 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).

Quick recommendations and resources for use when implementing the provisions of  

            IDEA 2004 (2005). Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved October 14,

2007 from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/dueproc/IDEA2004quickref.pdf

Regulations governing special education programs for children with Disabilities in

Virginia (2002). Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE

Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).

Spotsylvania County Schools Special Education Handbook, (2007-2008). Office of

Special Services.