Coyote Hills Case Study
In the school years 2010-2013, Coyote Hills Elementary School took three full years in order to identify an autistic student a constant disruption to the learning process and correctly place him into a school that would better meet his needs. For three years child A was not making personal academic growth, while impeding the learning process for others within the mainstream classroom. This situation served to raise the question about current legislation and if it is really serving to protect students with disabilities. Are our public schools neglecting to protect the other children within the classroom, while protecting the rights of the students with disabilities?
Child A entered Coyote Hills in kindergarten with a doctor’s diagnosis of autism due to a behavior evaluation by a psychologist, family practitioner and neurologist. Child A’s IEP was set up prior to his admission into school. The IEP wasn’t academically based but his accommodations were set due to severe behavioral concerns. The primary concerns were issues with bodily fluids, such as spitting, boogar wiping and sticking his hands down his pants and wiping. He had a hard time relating to other children, often crossing personal boundaries, which occasionally resulted in exposing himself to his peers. He also had severe focus and attention issues and would make constant sounds and moaning in order to self-sooth. He had severe stemming issues, which would result in out bursts and bodily fluids being passed to other students. He would get nervous and instantly pick his nose and chew on his sleeve until drench in drool. Lastly, he has extreme issue with noise, change, or smells which resulted in emotional breakdowns and screaming in the classroom o...
... middle of paper ...
...ate. Education Next, 4 (1), 43- 49. Retrieved November 24, 2012 from http://educationnext.org/autismandtheinclusionmandate
Hart, J. E., & Whalon, K. J. (2011). Creating social opportunities for students with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 273-279. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com
Hill, D., Martin, E., & Nelson-Head, C. (2011). Examination of Case Law (2007–2008) Regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder and Violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Preventing School Failure, 55(4), 214-225. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2010.542784
Peoria Policy Manual/SECTION J STUDENTS/J-0150 © JB EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
U.S. Department of Education. (2007) Civil rights: Archived: A 25 year history of the IDEA. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html
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...
In the Evan v. Board of Education of Rhinebeck Central school district, the mother of the child Frank Evans, Catherine Evans filed a case for the reimbursement of the child’s education at the Kildonan School. The Kildonan School, which specializes in special education for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia. The basis for her case is that the school did not provide her son with the appropriate education, as is required for children with learning disabilities under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Wrightslaw - Caselaw - Evans v. Rhinebeck (S.D. NY 1996), n.d.).
...is case, full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom full time. Although some may argue that that it is important to give every student equal opportunities to learn, and that it is only fair to include all students in regular learning environments, Decisions about including children with autism into fully integrated settings must be made consistent with the principle of the "least restrictive environment" as a guiding principle. No person with autism should be unnecessarily or inappropriately denied access to meaningful educational activities. However, it should be noted that the concept of least restrictive environment requires that appropriate learning take place. Placement decisions also require that students be capable of meaningful learning and functioning within the setting selected.
Baker, J. (2003). Social Skills Training for Children and Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome and Social-Communcation Problems. Shawnee Mission: Autism Asperger Publishing Company.
He engaged in daily episodes of loud screeching, hitting, biting, kicking and removing his clothing. These outbursts not only required his teacher, (Diane Johnson), and the aide to take time to calm Mark and redirect him, but also consumed the additional time necessary to get the rest of the children back on task after the distraction. In May 1994, Mark’s IEP team proposed to place Mark in a class in a class specifically structured for autistic children at Leesburg Elementary. Leesburg is an elementary school which houses the autism class in order to facilitate interaction between the autistic children and students who are not handicapped. Mark would have received only academic instruction and speech in the self-contained classroom, while joining a regular class for art, music, physical education, library and recess. The Leesburg IEP also would have permitted Mark to increase the portion of his instruction received in a regular education setting as he demonstrated an improved ability to handle it.The Hartmanns refused to approve the IEP and brought suit against the Loudon County Board of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
There are multiple types of schools in the United States; especially when it comes to dealing with children with Autism. Some schools do not handle autistic children well. There are multiple reports on how these children are put in isolation from other students in the school. Society frowns upon the mentally disabled, and many people feel as if this should not be. Most psychologists have said that there are no “right” schools for children with autism. However, public schools seem to have more pros, than cons. In public schools, the ratio (for teachers to students) is 1:1. There is special support, just like mainstreaming. Also, Autistic children don’t feel different than other students because the classroom has the same type-of setting and any other class. Just as there are pros, cons seem to follow however. One of the main, and only cons is simply that the parent does not agree with the choices, or setting of the school. The parent might feel the classroom is not adequate for their child.
“The 1% of US students with labels of severe disabilities including mental retardation have been historically excluded from ‘inclusive’ education” (Bentley, 2008, p. 543). Laws such as PL 94-142 and “No Child Left Behind” (as cited in Bentley), say that ‘public school students with all types of disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment—‘to the maximum extent possible…with children who do not have disabilities’ the majority of these students with special education labels, such as, mental retardation and multiple disabilities are still isolated in special education classrooms (Bentley, 2008, p. 545). Wehmeyer (as cited in Bentley), points out that mere access does not promote authentic participation (Bentley, 2008, p. 546). Burkowski et al (as cited in Webster and Cater), “Friendship has been defined as a bond between two individuals that is stable across time and involves mutual affection, mutual preference and having fun together” (Webster and Carter, 2007, p. 201). It is up to parents, teachers and other paraprofessionals to seek ways to facilitate and encourage the types of positive interactions that will foster these types of friendships. If done successfully all students will benefit and there will be true inclusion.
Yell, M. L. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate programs for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 182-191.
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
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.
This source is a methodical article on how to, as an educator, help a special education student achieve the appropriate accommodations for the student's disabilities. The article is very extensive. Whitby's article also has specific examples on student advocacy. Included in the article are definitions of terms commonly heard in IEP meetings, such as Free and Appropriate Public Education. This article will be helpful because it goes into detail on how a teacher can get involved. The article's reliability is evident, as the article was found using Galileo. Galileo described the article as scholarly. Additionally, the author is a specialist in Autism and a behavior analyst. The author also has a Ph. D. from the University of Central Florida. Additionally, the author is the director of the center for Autism Spectrum Disorders at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
National Alliance Of Mental Illness (2008, Fall). Understanding Your Legal Rights Under Special Education Laws. NAMI Beginnings, (12), 3-8.
Whenever the benefits of inclusion are brought up the first component that comes to mind is: social interaction. The benefits of social interaction is the most important component for including children with autism in an inclusion, general education setting (Lynch & Irvine, 2009). The reason this benefit is so high within a general education setting is that interactions occur at a greater frequency. Typical peers that meet cor...
There are millions of children that are passing through the United States school system every day, not all children possess the same traits, and not all children can learn at the same rate, and do not perform at the same ability. The fact that all children learn differently and some have difficulties learning in general classrooms, special education was put into place to try and take care of these issues. Special education programs were put into place to help all students with disabilities. These children range from general disabilities to more complex and severe disabilities. There has been a revolution occurring in the past several years with education systems, and special education. There have now been several laws that have been passed that mandate changes in special education and the treatment that children, and parents receive, it also changes how the children are being taught, and how the teachers are to also change and conform to this idea called inclusion. Inclusion in the school system simply is stating that children who have learning disabilities, and more severe disabilities are to be included in the general education environment for as long as possible daily. There has been several different names other than inclusion that have been used, but in present times and since the 1990’s inclusion has been the most common term used. “The change in terminology was pushed in part by the philosophy that inclusion would mean more than only physical placement of children with disabilities in the same classroom, but rather it conveyed that children with disabilities would become a part of larger social, community, and societal systems” (Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011, para. 3). There has not been just one major law that was passed...
Winterman, K. & Sapona, R. (2002). Everyone’s Included: Supporting Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in a Responsive Classroom Learning Environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 (1), 30-35.