This week’s Discussion which you will analyze two different case studies, one focused on “Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE)” (Fowler, et. al., 2011, pp. 534-535) and the other on the “Least Restri

This week’s Discussion which you will analyze two different case studies, one focused on “Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE)” (Fowler, et. al., 2011, pp. 534-535) and the other on the “Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)” (Fowler, et. al., 2011, pp. 550-553). You will also apply the tests from the Rowley, Roncker, and Rachel H cases to determine if applicable laws and procedures are being met for your assigned case study.

To prepare:

·         Apply the Rowley two-part test to determine whether or not the regular school environment is appropriate. What are your results?

·         Based on what you have learned about appropriate placement, which placement is the least restrictive for Samir, in your opinion.

·         If your recommendation contradicts the findings of the two-part test, how would you defend your recommendation?

 Answer the following questions regarding your assigned case study:

Group A

1.    Apply the Rowley two-part test to determine whether or not the regular school environment is appropriate. What are your results?

2.    Based on what you have learned about appropriate placement, which placement is the least restrictive for Samir, in your opinion.

3.    If your recommendation contradicts the findings of the two-part test, how would you defend your recommendation?

Avoid using International Journals to support claims because the results cannot always be generalized to the USA. Also, please cite with quotes and page numbers. Thanks.

Required Readings

Fowler, F. C., Hulett, K. E., & Kieff, J. E. (2011). Leadership, advocacy, policy, and law (Laureate Education, custom ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

• Chapter 8, “Getting the Words and the Money: Policy Formulation and Policy Adoption” (pp. 197–224)

Focus on the principles and processes school leaders can use to influence policy formulation and adoption.

• Chapter 17, “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (pp.456–474)

Focus on the six pillars of IDEA, as well as its confidentiality, transition, and behavioral provisions features.

• Chapter 18, “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” (pp. 475–492)

Focus on what protection and services Section 504 provides individuals with disabilities in public schools that is not provided by the IDEA and ADA.

• Chapter 19, “The Americans with Disabilities Act” (pp.493–501)

Focus on why the ADA is important to K –12 education even though it does not provide or extend any substantive or procedural rights to students in K –12 settings.

• Chapter 21, “Free and Appropriate Public Education” (pp.522–537)

Focus on the significance of the Rowley Case on FAPE and the field of special education as a whole.

• Chapter 22, “Least Restrictive Environment” (pp. 555–575)

Focus on the rationale defending the stand that the regular education classroom is not always the least restrictive environment for a special needs student.

Case Law Resources

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

Focus on the parameters this case established when considering and determining a “free and appropriate public education (FAPE)”

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1952, 1953, 1954). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.brown.bd.ed.htm

Focus on this case’s connection to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the impact of the case on equal access to a free and appropriate public education, due process, equal protection of the laws, and death of “separate but equal” schooling for individuals with disabilities.

Burlington School Committee, et. al. v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359. (1985). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.burlington.htm

Focus on the procedural safeguards established by this case relative to goals and objectives in an individualized education program.

Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (9th Cir. 2008). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/08/9th.forest.grove.ta.htm

Focus on the aspects of a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) that led to this ruling on private school tuition reimbursement to a parent who believes a child has not been given a free and appropriate public education by the child’s school district.

Mills v. Board of Education, DC, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972). Retrieved from http://outreach.umf.maine.edu/files/2009/10/millsvboardofed.pdf

Focus on the due process procedures to ensure all students equal protection under the laws that resulted from this class-action suit.

New Mexico Association for Retarded Citizens, et al. v. the State of New Mexico, 678 F.2d 847 (10th Cir. 1982). Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/678/847/329965/

Focus on how the ruling of this Section 504 discrimination case led to the implementation of IDEA in New Mexico.”

The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children et al., v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., No. 71–42. (1972). Retrieved from http://pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PARC-Consent-Decree.pdf

Focus on the precedent this case set for all children having a constitutional right to a public education without regard to disability.

Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984). Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/992/

Focus on why the findings of this U.S. Supreme Court case would have been damaging to the procedural safeguards of special education children and families had it not eventually been overturned by congressional legislation.