see Assign 2

Assign 2

Case Analysis: Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

This assignment assesses your ability to:

a. Determine the impact that current federal legislation has on the compliant implementation of special education programs, and

b. Analyze the legal concept “educational benefit.”

This assignment also supports your achievement of Course Learning Outcome 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the MASE Program Learning Outcome 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8.

In 1982, Amy Rowley’s parents enrolled their kindergarten-aged daughter in the Hendrick Hudson School District in Peekskill New York. Prior to beginning the school year, the school’s administration met with her parents to determine what supplemental services Amy needed, due to her significant hearing loss, in order provide her with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). She was successful and progressing at the same pace as her non-disabled peers as she advanced to the first grade (Wrightslaw, 2015). Her redrafted annual IEP included the continued use of an amplification system, a tutor for the deaf and speech therapy. Amy’s parents also wanted her to have a full time Sign Language interpreter included, which the school subsequently denied.

Instructions

Using support from your assigned reading, the Instructor Guidance, and the discussions, you will analyze this case to include the following specifications:

Content Expectations

· Define in detail each of the words in FAPE (Free, Appropriate, Public & Education) as it related to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.

· Summarize why the final ruling favored Hendrick Hudson Central School District’s decision not to provide Amy Rowley with an interpreter.

· Analyze the term “meaningful benefit” as it relates to the Rowley v. Hendrick case.

· Argue for or against the applicability of the Supreme Court’s final ruling to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

· Explain how the final ruling affects compliant implementation of special education programs.

Written Communication Expectations

· Syntax and Mechanics: Exhibit meticulous use of grammar, spelling, organization, and usage throughout your submission.

· Organization: Use the above listed guidelines for explicit sections/headings within your paper.

· Source Requirement: Reference at least three scholarly sources in addition to your course textbook in order to provide compelling evidence to support your ideas.

· Page Requirement: Your submission must be four double-spaced pages not including a title and reference page.

· APA format: All in text citations, page format and references must be written in APA 6th edition format.

Next Steps: Review and Submit the Assignment

Review your assignment with the Grading Rubric to ensure you have achieved the distinguished levels of performance for each criterion. Next, submit your document no later than Day 7.

Week Two Instructor Guidance

Welcome to Week Two of ESE603!  Last week you were introduced to the primary federal laws that have been created and enforced over the recent past to provide equitable public school opportunities for children with disabilities.  This week we focus on one of the six key components of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the concept of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).  Additionally, we will learn about the effects of this legal mandate that contribute to the development of compliant programs, supports, and services to students with disabilities in the public school setting. 

Important to know is that we are governed first, by the federal law IDEA, and then by the states that interpret these rules more locally. Further, each county and district develops policies and procedures based on the federal and state mandates.  For new and tenured teachers and others in the field, this can be extremely confusing at times.  You might imagine how parents feel about all of these rules as well.  General education teachers, typically do not have extensive training or knowledge on these laws and can find it quite laborious and confusing. This is one reason that in this course, we focus on these important elements. 

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) 

FAPE is a right that must be made available to all eligible students with disabilities.  Specifically, this mandate ensures that it is provided in conformity with the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and is provided at public expense, other words, at no cost to the parent.  The purpose of this element of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living…” 20 U.S.C. 1400(d).

Figure 1. Free Appropriate Public Education.
So, let’s break down these individual components:
 
Figure 2. FAPE. Source: https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/at-a-glance-free-and-appropriate-public-education
As you can see FAPE is one of the main principles for the proper decision-making process that must be afforded each child in the determination of proper placement considerations within the public school setting (Yell, 2012).  FAPE must also meet a student’s unique educational needs addressing the whole child including: 
· Mastery of academic subjects and basic skills
· Social, health, emotional, physical and vocational needs
· Functional and self-help needs
If, through the findings of a formal complaint or due process hearing, a school district is determined to have not provided FAPE, there are serious repercussions that can occur as a result of these violations.  The school district may be liable for the cost of obtaining a required service that was not delivered to the student.  Similarly, a school district can be ordered to provide compensatory educational services as a remedy for this type of noncompliance (Categories of Disability Under IDEA, Center for Parent Information and Resources, n.d.).
 
Destini Marlow
This week, you will see the reappearance of Mr. Franklin, the general education teacher who has worked with you in previous scenarios.  You and Mr. Franklin are again faced with a situation, this time, with a student who has a written IEP and attends your co-teaching class.  Destini Marlow’s IEP included individualized supports to assist her in her learning challenges.  Because she is not earning an “A” in your class, her parents question if she is receiving an appropriate education.
The issue of why school districts are not required to provide the “best” education compared to an “appropriate” education is a complicated matter.  Parents, of course, aim to maximize their child’s potential whereas school districts, under the IDEA are only required to provide an “appropriate” education. 
The various sections of FAPE, the “Free”, the “Public”, and the “Education” part of FAPE are typically not at issue. It is what is considered “Appropriate” is what is often debated and misunderstood.  To one person on the team “appropriate” might appear very different than that of another.  The art of collaborative decision-making is required for the process of arriving at the best decision for the student’s needs.
 
Educational Benefit
The case of Rowley v Hendrick Hudson School District will be examined during Week 2. 
The United States Supreme Court determined FAPE to be satisfied when the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit.  Since that time the standard for progress in the IEP has been interpreted to mean “some educational progress.” The court’s holding was decisive of our current understanding of the term educational benefit. 
Further, the Supreme Court indicated that the intent of the IDEA “was more to open the door to public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside” (Latham, Latham, & Mandlawitz, 2008, p. 30). In other words, instead of requiring a standard to maximize services, FAPE is fulfilled where the education is sufficient to confer some educational benefit to a student with a disability.
As you can see, this decision provided the availability for continued interpretation and debate as to the intensity of services provided to a child with a disability.  Districts are obligated to provide appropriate education, not the “best” education.  Many courts still define “appropriate education” as “access to an education” or a “basic floor of opportunity.”

Week Two Discussion Guidance

Free Appropriate Public Education
. For your discussion this week you have the opportunity to address the questions posed by Destini Marlow’s parents.  As mentioned previously, her parents have become concerned with her grades and question whether or not their daughter is receiving FAPE in accordance with her IEP.  You will write a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Marlow explaining the legislative guidelines related to the principle of FAPE in layman’s terms.  In this letter you will also explain what the school is required to provide for Destini.  In your response, you will reflect upon the letters written and posted by your classmates asking clarifying questions to obtain more details and a deeper understanding of this concept.
Please review the discussion board rubric prior to your initial post to ensure you are fully meeting each of the set criteria to earn full credit. As per the rubric requirements your initial post should include relevant professional, personal, or other real-world experiences in a manner that is rich in thought and provides valuable insight into the topic.
Additionally, all elements of the discussion board prompt should be thoroughly addressed with strong and precise connections to previous and/or current course content, or to real-life situations. When substantively replying to your peers’ post, be sure to provide a thorough and constructive analysis relating the response to relevant course concepts that incorporates pertinent follow-up thoughts or questions about the topic, and demonstrates respect for the diverse opinions of fellow learners.
Finally, while it may difficult to do for all the responses to your posts, please make an effort to respond back to those who took the time to respond to your initial post.  It is the courteous and gracious thing to do, and has the potential to make our classroom community discussions more interesting and thought-provoking. Answering questions posed by your peers invites continued learning, meaningful application, and relevant extension of the discussion.
Week Two Assignment Guidance

Case Analysis: Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

In this assignment, you have the ability to demonstrate your understanding of how the concept of educational benefit works based on the Rowley case.  Analyzing a case such as this is an opportunity to learn about the positions of each party and how the court resolved the matter. 
There are specific guidelines for the written portion of this assignment as well as the content.  In order to maximize your score, it is essentially that you follow these instructions closely.
Also, make sure to use the Grading Rubric as a self-checklist before submitting the final copy of your assignment to confirm you have met or exceeded each required expectation. The highest level of achievement on the rubric is “distinguished”, which is only earned through exceeding posted expectations at the proficiency level.Please remember you are in a masters-level program. Therefore, your writing, research, and content are held to graduate-level expectations.
ePortfolio
Save this written assignment in your electronic portfolio (ePortfolio).  As you recall, your ePortfolio serves as a collection of evidence to support the development and mastery of competencies as you progress through this program and you will re-visit it in ESE 699, your MASE program capstone course. 

References
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub.L. No 108-446, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. (2004)
Latham, P. H., Latham, P. S., & Mandlawitz, M. (2008). Special education law. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Yell, M. L. (2012). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Required Resources

Text

Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2003). 

Special education and the law: A guide for practitioners

 (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

· Chapter 2: Rights to a Free Appropriate Public Education

Websites

Baumel, J. (2011). 

Special education FAQ (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/legal-rights/521-special-education-faq.gs

· This webpage explains Free Appropriate Public Education, Least Restrictive Environment and other aspects of the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act. This is a required resource supporting the Week Two discussion, “Free Appropriate Public Education.”
Accessibility Statement does not exist.

Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Great Schools. (n.d.). 

IDEA 2004 Close Up: Evaluation and eligibility for specific learning disabilities – Learning disabilities & ADHD (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/LD-ADHD/943-evaluation-and-eligibility-for-specific-learning-disabilities.gs?page=all

· The website provides essential information on specific learning disabilities including characteristics and eligibility criteria
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

IDEA. (n.d.). 

IDEA – Building the legacy of IDEA 2004 (Links to an external site.)

. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CB%2C612%2Ca%2C1%2C

· The specific language of IDEA is provided on this website.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy does not exist.

Wrightslaw. (2015). 

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Amy Rowley (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

· The case/law “Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Amy Rowley” is published by Wrightslaw. This is a required resource supporting the Week Two assignment, “Case Analysis: Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley”
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)
 

Recommended Resources

Websites

Latham, P. (2015). 

At a glance: Free and appropriate public education (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/at-a-glance-free-and-appropriate-public-education

· This website provides a brief introduction to Free Appropriate Public Education in user-friendly terms.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Patino, E. (2015). 

Checklist: what is and isn’t covered under FAPE (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/checklist-what-is-and-isnt-covered-under-fape

· This webpage offers a checklist of obligations schools are and are not required to follow under Free Appropriate Public Education mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)