Gaskin Settlement Agreement: Summary/Reflection The Gaskin Settlement Agreement is an agreement between a group of families and advocacy organizations who filed a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) on behalf of a group of children with disabilities in 1994. This agreement does not change a student’s placement, program, or IEP in any manner. Only the IEP team has the authority to make modifications that will impact a student’s IEP. The main goal of this settlement is to make sure that IEP teams will determine if the goals in a student’s IEP may be implemented in a general education setting with supplementary aids and services prior to considering an environment that is more restrictive in nature. The elements of this case were designed to help increase the capacity of school districts to provide related services, SDI that is appropriate, supplementary aids and services, and supports to students who have disabilities that are placed in general education classrooms. The PDE lists many important elements of the Settlement Agreement to be aware of...
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
2.Facts: This case was originally presented before the district court of Colorado in 1993 on behalf of the parents of Gregory Urban, a seventeen-year-old teen with severe mental disabilities. Gregory and his parents moved to Evergreen, Colorado in 1991. The parents wanted Gregory to go to Evergreen High School but the school district placed him at Golden High School where he participated in support services for children with severe disabilities. The support services at Golden High School were not available at Evergreen High. After the development of Gregory’s IEP his parents voiced objections to what they believed constituted violations of Gregory’s right to a free and appropriate public education. These violations included placement of Gregory outside his neighborhood school and failure to stipulate transition services in his IEP. After initially participating in the IDEA administrative process the parents filed a case with the district court claiming the school district violated Gregory’s rights under IDEA and ADA. The court ruled in favor of the school district by rejecting
I chose to do my paper on students with Individualized Education Program’s for this fact alone. The majority of these students do not look any different from the other students. They want to be a part of the general education classroom setting. They may have mainstreaming and inclusion with IEP’s which makes the lives for these students more thriving. The main goal I have discovered in my reading of Individualized Education Program is placing the student at the center. The student is the main priority and their IEP focuses on meeting their educational needs. In reading, Inclusion and Mainstreaming I learned in the past, physically and mentally disabled children were often stricken form society and placed in separate institutions. This ended on November 29, 1975 when the Education for all Handicapped Children Act was signed. The Act required the government to provide ample funding for all handicapped children from ages 3-...
Parents play a critical role in the planning of educational programs for their children. In efforts to increase parental involvement, instructions were added to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that mandated active parental participation during the preparation of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). According to Lo (2008), when IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, additional parental rights were added that required the attendance of parents and every member of an IEP Team, unless both the parent and school agree to an absence and document that agreement in writing. That mandate emphasizes the importance of parental participation in educational programming for their children.
EDUC 253, Introduction to Learning Disabilities, is a 3-credit course designed to give education majors a deeper look at learning disabilities and teaching students with learning disabilities. The course delves into the basics of learning disabilities, including federal, state, and local definitions. Other legal issues, including the continuum of special education services, will also be discussed, along with IEP logistics. Special topics such as early childhood and adolescence; related disabilities like autism and ADHD; and social, emotional, and behavioral complications that are often concurrent with learning disabilities will also be covered. Finally, theoretical perspectives on learning and teaching and their applications in the classroom
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
It is the case against “Dr. Wolodzko” (defendant) by “Mrs. Stowers” (the plaintiff) in Wayne County court for the actions taken by the defendant and confinement of the plaintiff in the private mental hospital based on valid court order.
In this case, the IEP requirements of the child Frank Evans were not met by the school and the district. The reading and the facts provided in the case show that the district did not have any IEP for the child prepared at the beginning of the school session (Wrightslaw - Caselaw - Evans v. Rhinebeck (S.D. NY 1996), n.d.). The IDEA states that the IEP has to be prepared in a meeting where the child’s parents, a qualified spokesperson from the concerned school, the child’s teacher and when possible the child himself. With the consensus of the people mentioned here a detailed document about the assessment of the child’s educational needs and an action plan to meet the same is devised. Frank Evans was within his legal rights under IDEA to have an IEP for himself which was not provided and hence severely undermined the child’s performance levels in the school (FindLaw's the United States Supreme Court case and opinions,
Education is an essential priority for all children which are guaranteed in the United States through the legislature of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Feuerborn & Tyre, 2009). Problems arise when students with disabilities have been disparaged from appropriate education due to disproportionate assessments, or teachers that are misinformed concerning the recognition of disabilities. Across America a plethora of students with disabilities are found to be eligible for special education services and receive services under subjective eligibility categories such as emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) (Thorsen, Koven, Pattee, Watson, & Collier, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to explain in detail what an effective program for students with EBD should include. Additionally, written within this paper is the perspective of a special educator who assures that procedural due process is being honored and legal issues are being addressed in a strong program for students with EBD by implementing the following components: development of Individualized Education Program (IEP), procedures for developing least restrictive environment assignments, processes for conducting a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA), what to include in a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), examples of potential positive behavior interventions, re-evaluation procedures and timeline once students are identified for services, student self-evaluation procedures, and a transition plan (as is required from ages 14-16).
In 2004 the federal government reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or (IDEA), which was originally established in 1975. Under the legislation, all students, including those with mental, physical and emotional disabilities, are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (“Education Commission of the States”, 2013). Since the implementation of the act many issues have arisen concerning special education programs in America’s public schools. One of the most important issues in special education is segregation. Segregation is the separation of individuals or groups of children (Reynolds, 1962). Many people argue that it is best for students with disabilities, special needs, and/or disadvantages to be taught in separate environments than “regular” or “gifted” students, while some say that the separation is holding these children back.
Special needs litigation is one of the most common legal issue dealt with in educational circles. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) does not define “appropriate” which leaves the interpretation of an adequate level of educational services and responsibilities open to a great deal of subjectivity. This analysis provides a brief summary of special needs cases and the implications for school systems and educational administrators.
The issue of educational placements for students with disabilities has been an ongoing issue of debate brought to attention in 1975 by the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). This act required that procedures be enacted that would protect the rights of disabled children and assure that to the extent appropriate handicapped children are educated with children who are not handicapped and that the removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of that handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplemental aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Part B, Section 612 (5) (B)). Even with the most recent reauthorizations of this act (1997 and 2004) this section of the law has remained intact. More recently and according to The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), a greater push has been to hold school systems more accountable for the achievement of special education students to pass state assessments especially in the areas of Math and Reading. Math and Reading are also the areas of greatest difficulties for special education students. Questions in regards to classroom placement, instructional methods, curriculum used, and teacher qualification have been dominant for some time. Educational placement of students with disabilities therefore continues to be a controversial issue and further research is necessary.