Due Process is a term used in the special education community to describe the process where parents may disagree with the program recommendations for the student by the school district. Under IDEA, there are two ways to resolve a dispute, mediation or fair hearing. A due process does not mean the student is removed from school. Both parties can still work together toward a common goal and many due process cases are dropped by the petitioner. Due process normally starts when a guardian feels that their student is not receiving a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that meets the requirements of the student’s IEP. FAPE is an educational right of students with disabilities and their guardians that is outlined in the Rehabilitation Act of
…show more content…
The student was deaf and his school district opted to apply FAPE and bus him away from his home school to the most appropriate and least restrictive environment to meet his hearing disability, he would be placed at the Sterck School, Delaware School for the Deaf. The parents did not agree with the placement and felt that their child needed a small student to teacher ratio. The parents elected to decline the Sterck School and placed their child in a private school with a speech interpreter at public expense. The Due Process Panel held a hearing to rule on both accusations. Did the Sterck School provided by the district meet the standards to provide an appropriate education under FAPE and is an interpreter required to be provided as a specialized service. The Panel rejected the claim in reference to Sterck School for an appropriate education. The Panel also determined that Delaware state law did not prohibit the funds for the interpreter, they felt the school district misused their interpretation of IDEA by not qualifying the interpreter under related services. The Panel ruled that the district was responsible for the interpreter even though the parents chose a private …show more content…
Their argument was that the parents declined related services when they declined the appropriate public education. Their argument highlighted that the Sterck School offered several interpreters on staff and that the student would be able to work toward the transitional goal of employment and independent living. By forcing the district to fund one interpreter would hinder the student’s by creating a need for a 3rd party in all aspects. The Sterck School was designed for the hearing impaired so that they could build relationships and develop their education. All Teachers are trained in sign language and all students at the school are learning it. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the school district and the article quotes Judge Farnan “Where, as here, the District has provided the child with a FAPE and the parents elect to place the child in private school, no liability continues on the part of the District for the payment of that child’s cost of education, including special education and related services.” The court noted that the first cause in the hearing over the placement of the student removed any obligation by the state. The parents elected to place their student in a private school and their for any cost with this placement would be at the expense of the parents. The School District provided a free and appropriate education with the Sterck
The student was deaf and his school district opted to apply FAPE and bus him away from his home school to the most appropriate and least restrictive environment to meet his hearing disability, he would be placed at the Sterck School, Delaware School for the Deaf. The parents did not agree with the placement and felt that their child needed a small student to teacher ratio. The parents elected to decline the Sterck School and placed their child in a private school with a speech interpreter at public expense. The Due Process Panel held a hearing to rule on both accusations. Did the Sterck School provided by the district meet the standards to provide an appropriate education under FAPE and is an interpreter required to be provided as a specialized service. The Panel rejected the claim in reference to Sterck School for an appropriate education. The Panel also determined that Delaware state law did not prohibit the funds for the interpreter, they felt the school district misused their interpretation of IDEA by not qualifying the interpreter under related services. The Panel ruled that the district was responsible for the interpreter even though the parents chose a private …show more content…
Their argument was that the parents declined related services when they declined the appropriate public education. Their argument highlighted that the Sterck School offered several interpreters on staff and that the student would be able to work toward the transitional goal of employment and independent living. By forcing the district to fund one interpreter would hinder the student’s by creating a need for a 3rd party in all aspects. The Sterck School was designed for the hearing impaired so that they could build relationships and develop their education. All Teachers are trained in sign language and all students at the school are learning it. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the school district and the article quotes Judge Farnan “Where, as here, the District has provided the child with a FAPE and the parents elect to place the child in private school, no liability continues on the part of the District for the payment of that child’s cost of education, including special education and related services.” The court noted that the first cause in the hearing over the placement of the student removed any obligation by the state. The parents elected to place their student in a private school and their for any cost with this placement would be at the expense of the parents. The School District provided a free and appropriate education with the Sterck