Running Head: Special Education Final Project
Special Education Final Project
Kathleen Johnson
University of St. Thomas
School Law EDUC 5391
April 27, 2014
1
Special Education Final Project
2
Introduction
In the case Student v. Santa Fe Independent School District, the
Petitioner (represented by the parent) requested Due Process pursuant
to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA). The Respondent is the Santa Fe Independent School District.
The Petitioner filed the request on February 12, 2013. Neither party
requested a continuance or extension of the Decision deadline. The
hearing was held April 9-10, 2013, and the Decision was timely
rendered and forwarded to the parties.
Special Education Final Project
3
Part One
The Hearing Officer decided upon the issues presented. The Petitioner
alleges that the District failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the
student on January 14, 2013, by removing necessary accommodations and
that the proposed IEP denied the student a FAPE. The Hearing Officer's
decision was that the IEP had been consistently carried out in a
coordinated and collaborative manner by the key stakeholders. The
Officer concluded that although IDEIA requires collaboration with the
parent as a stakeholder in the student's education, the right to
collaborate does not mean the right to dictate the method in which the
teacher carries out instruction in the classroom. The way in which the
accommodations are implemented is a matter of methodology, which is to
be resolved by the District, not the Hearing Officer.
The second issue is the Respondent filed a counterclaim, seeking a
finding from the Hearing Officer that it did provide the student a
FAPE during the 2012-2013 school year. The Officer's decision was that
the parent who challenged the implementation of the IEP must show more
than a de minimus failure to implement all elements of the IEP. The
party must demonstrate that the District failed to implement
substantial or significant portions of the IEP. Any failure on the
part of the District to implement the student's accommodations
perfectly was minimal which resulted in no loss of educational
opportunity or denial of a FAPE. The Officer concluded that the SFISD
provided the student with a FAPE at all times during the 2012-2013
school year and proposed that the IEP was reasonably calculated to
continue to provide the student with a Free Appropriate Public
Education.
Special Education Final Project
4
Part Two
Of the six major tenets of IDEA 2004, the case does encompasses IEP
(Accommodations) and Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). All
children with disabilities, regardless of type or severity of the
disability, receive a free, appropriate education. An IEP must be
developed and implemented to meet the unique needs of the student with
a disability. The Individual Education Plan must specify the student's
educational needs, the present level of performance, measurable annual
goals and objectives, and describe special education and related
services that will be provided to help the student attain those goals
and benefit from education.
The student's accommodations provided in the 2012-2013 IEP included
close proximity to the teacher (front row of each class); extended
time on exams of 150%; extended time up to 5 school days per
assignment; contact the parent by email on the first day the
assignment is not turned in; note taking assistance (slot notes); FM
Unit to be made available in all classes; and ability to test in a
quiet location (to reduce distractions). The ARD Committee decided
that the accommodation of extended time for assignment completion will
be reviewed at the end of the first semester adjusted to the student's
progress.
The parent and the District met on multiple occasions and communicated
through multiple emails regarding the parents’ literal interpretation
of the accommodations. They met to discuss accommodations of extended
time on assignments; close proximity to the teacher (front row of each
class); and note taking (slot notes).
Special Education Final Project
5
The ARD Committee met on October 2, 2012, and clarified that front row
seating is not available due to the class structure or activity. It
was determined that written justification should be sent to the parent
and the monitoring teacher. The parent insisted on the
literal front row. The FM system was consistently made available to
the student, but the student refused to use the device. The teachers
provided note taking assistance in a variety of formats, but the
student frequently refused to take notes provided by the teacher. The
parent insisted that specific formats be used by the teachers but must
be approved by her. These are a few accounts as to why the parent
filed Due Process according to the IEP (Accommodations) thus claiming
her child did not receive a FAPE.
Part Three
Based on the results of the Due Process Hearing, the implications for
the school district for the future is to clarify "preferential to
instruction" when discussing preferential seating as an accommodation.
When it comes to terminology such as "slot notes", the district needs
to clarify the definition not only for the parent but for all on the
ARD Committee as well. This is to ensure no misinterpretations of the
accommodations. As far as note taking, this involves methodology,
which is an issue to be resolved by the District. Although the
District failed to perfectly implement the student's accommodations,
this failure resulted in no harm to the student. The District should
produce a "good faith effort" when implementing IEPs.
Special Education Final Project
Part Four
6
Of all the numerous cases I reviewed for possible selection, this one
I kept coming back to review. The case is intriguing because of the
parent and the continued back and forth of complaints. It appeared
that despite all efforts the District conveyed, the parent
was never fully satisfied. The other reason why I selected this case
was from the standpoint of a parent of a child with special needs. I
can understand that she wanted to ensure all efforts to provide her
child a FAPE and appropriate accommodations, but in my professional
feelings I do believe the District made every reasonable effort in
"good faith" to implement the IEP accommodations over the course of
the school year. I wonder if this child is in high school thus being
able to participate in the ARD. It appears the child was not in
attendance at these meetings to determine their take on the
accommodations and any concerns they may have in regards to the
implementation.
Professionally speaking, I would like to hear from the student and the
reasons why they did not take advantage of their accommodations set
forth in the IEP.
Special Education Final Project
7
References
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/Index2.aspx?id=6728
Essex, N. L. (Fifth Edition) School Law and the Public Schools