Case Study: Free And Appropriate Public Education

During the due process hearing there were two key principals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) being challenged. Both were dependent on the placement of Stephen Jeffers, the boy with Autism that is at the center of the hearing. The law requires that students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) so one aspect of the case was determining whether or not placing Stephen in the public school at this time in his life was appropriate. The parents in the case argued that the Early School, a private facility for students with Autism, was a more appropriate placement for Stephen due to the severity of his disability. On the other hand, the public school district representing Maple School, …show more content…
I felt this because of her qualifications, her observations, and her demeanor. To begin, when asked about her qualifications the preschool teacher had to admit she was only on a provisional teaching license. This seemed damaging to the school’s case because it implied she was not the most knowledgeable due to her limited experience. I understand having a provisional license is typical of teachers but usually those that are new to the profession which makes one think she has not taught long and, therefore, may not know what the best approaches are to teaching children with autism. Also, in regards to applied behavior analysis (ABA) she was limited in her training and, what I found to be really hurtful to the case for the district, was that she participated in training through the Early School on ABA. This shows that the private school Stephen currently attends is an expert in this field. In addition, I felt that the preschool teacher had limited interaction with Stephen. She had only observed him on one occasion for a little over an hour to see how he interacted with a one on one aide. This does not seem like enough time to get a full picture of this particular student and how he might behave in a regular classroom setting. Finally, the preschool teacher seemed to become frustrated and angered when cross-examined by the attorney for the …show more content…
The man was very composed and had expertise in the matters he was discussing in regards to such a case as Stephen’s. He referenced multiple studies and seemed well read in matters of students with autism. He also did not dispute against different behavioral or teaching approaches but rather gave reasons why ABA is a widely accepted approach to teaching students with autism. Furthermore, the child psychologist spent the most amount of time with Stephen reviewing his case, evaluating and observing him, and talking with Stephen’s parents. This made me feel as if he had a much better understanding of the types of needs Stephen has and the behaviors he would emit in a public school setting. He also observed at the Maple School for half a day giving him a picture into what life could be like for Stephen in this particular setting. I also thought that the child psychologist gave actual reasons why he felt one placement would be better than another. He mentioned worrying over a lack of structure and routine at the Maple school and the amount of free time in this setting. This was a real concern of his in regards to Stephen because he mentioned that Stephen did not exhibit the behaviors outlined in his file due to the structure, routine, and possibility of redirection in the private school setting. His testimony seemed solid in my