The case study did not evidence any effort from the school’s administration to explain the parents about their possibilities. For the placement of Jerry in the alternative setting, they were not told about their rights when they complaint of the option. Moreover, after the alternative setting failed, they were presented with only three possibilities of which only one was an option. As a result, all of the mistakes throughput the years and during the procedures could have led to a possible lawsuit based on the IDEA. Jerry was tracked into an alternative setting; then, he was pushed towards home schooling. Even in the case that the district’s superintendent decides to return him into the local public school’s setting, the possibility
…show more content…
[34 CFR 300.530(f)] [20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(F)]
This rule’s provides enough evidence to support a lawsuit against the school and district’s officers because they never tried to place Jerry back into his original setting and never tried a behavioral intervention plan with accommodations or alternatives. However, if the parents were unaware of their rights and signed the IEP meeting log, they will have to prove that they were not inform of their rights. Possible challenges that the stakeholders could encounter is the possibility of legal actions from other student’s parents as a result of the actions of Jerry. Also, Jerry’s parents could start legal actions. Essex (2008) describes, “a tort is an actionable or civil wrong committed against one person by another independent of contract” (p.169). Furthermore, Jerry’s parents could start a legal action founded in this same statue due to the failure of the school’s personnel to restrict their son when he was being violent. If he got himself hurt because they let him walk by himself when he was angry, they could have been legally responsible. Foreseeability, as explained in the framework analysis, is also a legal statue that could contribute to a legal action of any side in this situation. Additionally, due to the presence of a member of the alternative setting during the IEP meeting, without the parental knowledge, another legal action could have been presented under the statue of Family Education Rights and
[34 CFR 300.530(f)] [20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(F)]
This rule’s provides enough evidence to support a lawsuit against the school and district’s officers because they never tried to place Jerry back into his original setting and never tried a behavioral intervention plan with accommodations or alternatives. However, if the parents were unaware of their rights and signed the IEP meeting log, they will have to prove that they were not inform of their rights. Possible challenges that the stakeholders could encounter is the possibility of legal actions from other student’s parents as a result of the actions of Jerry. Also, Jerry’s parents could start legal actions. Essex (2008) describes, “a tort is an actionable or civil wrong committed against one person by another independent of contract” (p.169). Furthermore, Jerry’s parents could start a legal action founded in this same statue due to the failure of the school’s personnel to restrict their son when he was being violent. If he got himself hurt because they let him walk by himself when he was angry, they could have been legally responsible. Foreseeability, as explained in the framework analysis, is also a legal statue that could contribute to a legal action of any side in this situation. Additionally, due to the presence of a member of the alternative setting during the IEP meeting, without the parental knowledge, another legal action could have been presented under the statue of Family Education Rights and