Special Education Policy Case Review There are four sources of law in the United States, one of which is the rulings of judicial courts (Russo & Osborne, 2008). It’s these court trials and judicial opinions that determine how legislation is to be interpreted and applied because at times, legislation is ambiguous or broad or may not necessarily take into account the affects of preexisting legislation. As with all other types of legislation, lawsuits regarding special education occur and it’s the result of these laws that have determined how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is interpreted and implemented. Three cases, Doug C. v. Hawaii, PV v. Philadelphia, and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District are recent cases
…show more content…
v. Hawaii, 2013). When Spencer was 15, the department held an IEP meeting on November 9, 2010 without Spencer’s father, Doug C. being present (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Prior the scheduled meeting, Doug C. and Kaleo Waiau, a special education coordinator at Maui High School made several attempts to schedule a meeting, finally all parties agreed upon November 9th; but unfortunately the morning of November 9th, Doug C. contacted Waiau stating that he was sick and needed to reschedule (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Doug C. stated that he was sick and was not capable of participating in the meeting that day, Waiau suggested that Doug C. participate via telephone conference but Doug C. stated he wanted to be present and so he suggested meeting on the 16th or 17th, however both these dates would be after the annual review deadline of November 13th, 2010 (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Waiau then suggested rescheduling the meeting for the 10th or 11th as other IEP team members were unavailable on Friday, November 12th (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Doug C. commented that he would not be able to commit because he was unsure of he would be physically well enough to attend (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Waiau went ahead and conducted the IEP meeting on November 9th without Doug C.; at this meeting, the IEP team, minus Doug C., determined that Spencer’s placement would change and he would begin attending the local public school, Maui High School (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). In his suit, Doug C. claimed that because he was not present at the IEP meeting, Spencer was denied a FAPE (Doug C. v. Hawaii,
v. Hawaii, 2013). When Spencer was 15, the department held an IEP meeting on November 9, 2010 without Spencer’s father, Doug C. being present (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Prior the scheduled meeting, Doug C. and Kaleo Waiau, a special education coordinator at Maui High School made several attempts to schedule a meeting, finally all parties agreed upon November 9th; but unfortunately the morning of November 9th, Doug C. contacted Waiau stating that he was sick and needed to reschedule (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Doug C. stated that he was sick and was not capable of participating in the meeting that day, Waiau suggested that Doug C. participate via telephone conference but Doug C. stated he wanted to be present and so he suggested meeting on the 16th or 17th, however both these dates would be after the annual review deadline of November 13th, 2010 (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Waiau then suggested rescheduling the meeting for the 10th or 11th as other IEP team members were unavailable on Friday, November 12th (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Doug C. commented that he would not be able to commit because he was unsure of he would be physically well enough to attend (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). Waiau went ahead and conducted the IEP meeting on November 9th without Doug C.; at this meeting, the IEP team, minus Doug C., determined that Spencer’s placement would change and he would begin attending the local public school, Maui High School (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013). In his suit, Doug C. claimed that because he was not present at the IEP meeting, Spencer was denied a FAPE (Doug C. v. Hawaii,