Putting It All Together: A Case Study After reading about Charlie in Putting it all together: A case study explain whether you would want Charlie back in your class. At the beginning of all the events, I would assume that Charlie’s actions might have been due to his disability. Since he is a disabled child, I would excuse Charlie and accept him back to my class. However, when the requirement by IDEA, of a manifestation determination review is held for Charlie, and it’s determined that his behavior was not a manifestation of his disability, it would be difficult to accept Charlie back to my class. For one this calls for the next set of decisions to be made. Even if the administration decides to accept Charlie back to the class, I would not welcome him because …show more content…
Under the IDEA’s Regulations on Discipline (b) General (1) School personnel under this section may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from his or her current placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 consecutive school days (to the extent those alternatives are applied to children without disabilities), and for additional removals of not more than 10 consecutive school days in that same school year for separate incidents of misconduct (as long as those removals do not constitute a change of placement under § 300.536). Charlie was first suspended for 10 days for stealing software from the computer lab at his school. The additional 3 days suspension was for misconduct on the teacher. The teacher reported that Charlie called her names, threatened to come back to school with a knife to “cut her,” and pretended to swing his fists toward her. Charlie’s teacher then called the principal, who, in accordance with the student code of conduct at the school, issued an additional 10-day suspension for Charlie, bringing his total days of suspension to
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
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...
Matthew went to the school's hearing officer for a review of the disciplinary action. The examiner determined that the speech fell within the ordinary meaning of "obscene," as used in the disruptive-conduct rule, and affirmed the discipline in its entirety. Fraser served two days of his suspension, and was allowed to return to school on the third day.
The first is, should you make exceptions to rules such as allowing someone into a course they have not met a prerequisite for if you believe they did not receive the best opportunity to meet said prerequisite. This may relate directly to me when teaching, if I am in a position to make this decision I will choose the option of benefit maximization; whichever option does the least harm. I was also made to consider through this chapter how to teach the disabled, from reading this chapter I think it is ideal to make the class as a whole succeed and more importantly grow. I will not limit opportunities for students if another disabled classmate cannot participate, especially if it is aiding in the students
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
First, their was a big conflict inside the class room. Mr. Crawford was asking one of the students a question, and Jamal jumped in the conversation. Jamal was trying to help him out, so he told the boy to say his name, which was the answer to his question. Mr. Crawford was very angry. Mr. Crawford then tried to preach to Jamal by quoted some sayings. Mr. Crawford never got a chance to finish his sentence, because Jamal would finish them. Mr. Crawford then got mad. He then ordered Jamal to leave the class because he was embarrassed.
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
We are always being haunted by our past sins and Misdemeanors. Even when we have been reformed, it takes a similar incident or someone appearing from the past to remind us of what we were before. I think Charlie is a strong Character. He was able to reform himself and stop drinking. This shows that he is strong. His coming back for his daughter proves that he is aware of his Civic responsibilities and he is ready to undertake them. There is a Strong bond between him and his daughter which is definitely a plus on his side.
Graziano’s article over the handling of his son’s disability in the classroom also involves issues that relate to teachers detecting signs of mental illness in the classrooms, how teachers identify a behavioral troubled child, and training school counselors on the Section 504 policy that are all happening in the world today. Realizing these issues can help parents with giving their child the best out of their education and can also help teachers understand the importance of their relationship with students. Everyone should have the opportunity for a brighter future and having a learning disability should not be the end of the road for any student.
Nappi court case went to trial in the district court. The court found that ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was Kathy Stuart. The judge explained that expulsion would reject Stuart from a free and appropriate education guaranteed to special education students in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The expulsion of handicapped children not only jeopardizes their right to an free and appropriate education, but it is also inconsistent with the procedures established by the Handicapped Act for changing the placement of disruptive children. Leagle (1985). STUART v. NAPPI (610 F.Supp. 90). Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985700610FSupp90_1677/STUART%20BY%20AND%20THROUGH%20STUART%20v.%20NAPPI. The court said that expelling students with disabilities will limit their availability to an education in the least restrictive environment. However, the court did rule that school officials could substitute an expulsion with suspension when dealing with a student who met the criteria to be covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, the court ruled that a school district could suspend a student from school for a maximum of only ten days. The court also determined that a school district could also hold a meeting to change the placement of the student if a more restrictive environment was needed. First, school authorities can take swift disciplinary measures, such as suspension, against disruptive handicapped children. Secondly, a (special education committee) can request a change in the placement of handicapped children who have demonstrated that their present placement is inappropriate by disrupting the education of other children. The Handicapped Act thereby affords schools with both short-term and long-term methods of dealing with handicapped children who are behavioral problems. Casetext (1978). STUART V. NAPPI, (D.CONN. 1978). Retrieved from
In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension. J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language. J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for children with disabilities in a Least Restrictive Environment to not have their needs met adequately. Some parents think that teachers do not have the proper skills to help their child with disabilities flourish in the classroom. Two concerns/challenges are that typical developing students will imitate inappropriate behaviors made by students with disabilities and students with disabilities could potentially get teased about their disabilities and inappropriate behaviors. As said by Virginia Buysse and Donal B. Baily, Jr. (1993) “… the opportunities for young children with disabilities to interact with peers in integrated settings must be carefully
...behavior was not a manifestation of the student's disability and the student is suspended beyond 10 days, educational services, including access to the general curriculum, must continue. Special education services may not to be interrupted during the manifestation process or long-term suspension.
This case study began in Andy 's second grade when he first received his IEP. In his third grade year, he was in Mrs. Sachs ' class, who is a strict teacher. In that environment, Andy could not succeed. However, he was also in a resource room with Kathryn, but in the resource room, he was showing little progress. Now, the CES board is voting to decide whether or not Andy will receive his IEP in the fourth grade.
I walked very nervously down to the office, wondering why I was being called down, for what reason? I slowly entered like a snail into the main office, where i was greeted by the receptionist behind the desk. She said in a nasally voice, “ The vice principal would like to see you in his office.” I responded with an “ Okay.” I walked back to the Vice Principal’s office, i opened the door and saw the Vice Principal and a teacher aid sitting behind the wooden desk. “ Take a seat Scott, we would like to talk to you about the incident in the hall way yesterday after school, about the two girls who got in a fight.” Said the Vice Principal in a stern tone. He went on to show me the video recording from one of the school’s many monitoring video cameras. It showed not only the fight, and the wild spectators, but also me rolling around on the floor with my phone out, recording the fight and sending it on Snapchat for the world to see. I wasn’t aware though of the law that prohibits video taping of people that could damage their reputation, I was filled in on this by the Vice Principal and the teacher aid sitting beside him to his right. For this reason, I was given two days in-school suspension, plus a not so joyful reaction from my Father upon hearing of my punishment handed down by the school. I spent the next two days in in-school, as i mentioned earlier, being brought down my work from my classes, having sheer boredom rush over my body when i was finished and all I could do was stare at the paint chipped wall. This goes t show that Cell Phones might be true gems of our generation, but we shouldn’t use them like knuckleheads, because then you might up in the same position i was in, or maybe even worse. So keep the phones in your pockets when you see trouble, because trouble will then find you as