Why do you think there is such a difference between parent rights for students with disabilities and those without? The parents of general education students have rights, of course, but they do not get to be a part of the team that determines curriculum or what the student will learn. Those decisions are made by the state through standards for each grade level. Why does this difference exist?

I NEED THIS TO BE DONE IN 100 WORDS TO 200 WORDS, (LECTURE READING)

Individualized Education Plan Development

Introduction

When considering if an Individualized Education Program (IEP) has perfectly met the federal standards, what the courts generally want to know is if any mistakes made compromised the child's educational benefit or impeded parental participation in the process. The courts have found in favor of the plaintiffs when it is proved that defects in the IEP have had an impact on the progress of the child. IDEA 2004 specifically indicates the required elements of an IEP, including a statement of present levels of performance; annual goals; measurable short-term objectives; criteria for measuring progress; supplemental aides and services; transition goals.

Case Law

Doyle v. Arlington County School Board(1992) was brought to the courts by the parents of a six-year-old autistic child with profound speech and language development issues. In February 1990, he began receiving services at Chesterfield County Schools in their center-based, preschool handicapped program. Evaluation data showed that Danny had significantly impaired expressive language, severe behavior problems, poor interpersonal skills, and symptoms of hyperactivity.

Danny's IEP was written to include two hours of speech and language services per week. The approach used included a combination of direct, indirect, and consultative services. At the end of the first year, the child's mother was not satisfied with the progress made and decided to send him to a private speech therapist during the summer. Danny was moved to another elementary school in September 1990, where, at his mother's request, his IEP was revised to include more time for speech and language services. The child progressed that school year.

During the summer of 1991, doctors specializing in neurology, speech, and language examined Danny. It was their recommendation that Danny receive intensive speech language services on a continuous, 12-month basis in a structured environment. The mother requested that a new IEP address extended school-year services so that Danny's skill acquisition would not regress during the summer of 1992. These requests were denied.

The mother and her legal representative requested a due-process hearing. A hearing officer heard the complaints filed by Danny's mother and ordered the school district to provide an extended school program for Danny. The school district appealed the hearing, and a reviewing officer found in favor of the school district. This back-and-forth change in decisions prompted the parent to seek recourse from the courts. After reviewing the findings of the original hearing officer and the reviewing officer, the court found that the reviewing officer had not made due effort to fully investigate the circumstances of the case and that, in effect, the ruling from the original hearing officer was correct. Danny was entitled to extended school-year services at the expense of the school district, not the parent.

Big Beaver Falls Area School District v. Jackson (1992) concerns a student named Billy, who had begun having serious emotional outbursts around the fourth grade. After receiving a psychiatric assessment labeling him emotionally disturbed, Billy was ruled eligible for special education services. Although his IEP team addressed some issues, but never writing a formal behavior modification plan into his IEP, and his behavior continued to deteriorate in subsequent years. After many severe incidences of misbehavior, Billy, then 14, was placed in a separate school setting for children who are emotionally disturbed, and all the inclusion provisions of his IEP were abandoned. Billy's mother approved of the change in placement.

At the beginning of Billy's eighth-grade year, his mother requested that the IEP team reconsider appropriate placement options. Billy's behavior had worsened, and she did not think the special school setting was working. The district representatives at the IEP meeting and the mother agreed to leave Billy at the special school, and he would receive extra services. The IEP still did not contain a behavior intervention plan, corrective goals, or objectives.

In December of his eighth year, Billy was severely injured in an altercation with another student on the school bus, and his mother requested a due-process hearing. The hearing officer again determined that placement at the separate school was appropriate for Billy. Another IEP was written to include additional services, but it still lacked a behavior intervention plan.

Finally, the mother used her legal right of appeal and took the district to court. The court reversed the hearing officer's decision, concluding the school district had failed to comply with IDEA (1990). The district was responsible for monetary compensation to the plaintiff, and all subsequent IEPs were required to have an appropriate behavior intervention plan that specifically addressed the behavior issues needing to be improved.

Conclusion

The cases mentioned above are rather unique in their outcomes, but are only two examples of the issues concerning IEP development brought before the court. Litigation continues today, as parents, children, and their advocates demand that school districts become more cognizant of IEP standards.

References
Big Beaver Falls Area School District v. Jackson, 615 A.2d 910 (P. Commw. Ct. 1992).
Doyle v. Arlington County School Board, 806 F. Supp. 1253 (E.D. Va. 1992).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 (1990).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub.L. No. 94-142, § 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004).