Issue:
Beth was 13 years old at the time of the case. Beth had been diagnosed with Rett’s syndrome which is a progressive disorder. In Beth’s case the Rett’s caused Beth to have little motor control such that she was confined to a wheelchair. Beth was non- verbal and used technology to communicate. Her cognitive abilities were at a preschool level with Beth being unable to read or understand numbers.
Up until the time of the case, Beth was receiving Special Education services and relied on a 1:1 aid to access an extremely modified curriculum within the general education classroom. In 1997, her IEP team recommended she be placed in an Educational Life Skills (ELS) program due to not making progress on her IEP goals. The students in the …show more content…
The IEP team is then responsible for laying out when and to what extent the child is out of the LRE. IDEA entitles all children with disabilities to access public education, and must provide the child with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Due to Beth not making progress on goals, Beth was receiving few benefits from the mainstream setting. The IEP proposed a setting that would still provide access to non-disabled peers to the extent that was most appropriate for her to access her education in a way that was most meaningful to her as well as allow for academic progress. The Appeals Court stated that it appeared “the parents had confused the FAPE requirement with IDEA's Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement.” The parents were under the impression the mainstream setting was providing Beth some educational benefit and that was enough to continue on that setting. Obviously, the parents in this case were fighting for what they believed best for their daughter. However, they were overlooking the appropriateness of the setting and not considering they were hampering their daughter’s educational progress by disagreeing with the proposal to place her in the ELS class. The US Court of Appeals disagreed with the parents and found she was not benefitting in any way from her current instruction and it would be doing a disservice …show more content…
Beth’s parents seem to confuse LRE and FAPE, seeming to believe that the least restrictive environment, in this case the general education class, is the only appropriate option. However, the United States Court of Appeals agreed with both the district court and hearing officer, saying that the school district’s recommendation to move Beth to the ELS class is an example of an appropriate education.
“So long as the regular classroom confers ‘some educational benefit’ to Beth, they argue…the school district cannot remove her from that setting. This language is misplaced. The Rowley holding applies only to the school district’s responsibility to provide a FAPE — a requirement that analyzes the appropriateness of the district’s placement — not the appropriateness of the ELS alternatives, including the regular education classroom” (See Reference 3). The court here understands the commitment and dedication of the family to their daughter’s case, yet also recognizes that they do not understand to the fullest extent the benefit of a general education class as compared to a contained
Beth was 13 years old at the time of the case. Beth had been diagnosed with Rett’s syndrome which is a progressive disorder. In Beth’s case the Rett’s caused Beth to have little motor control such that she was confined to a wheelchair. Beth was non- verbal and used technology to communicate. Her cognitive abilities were at a preschool level with Beth being unable to read or understand numbers.
Up until the time of the case, Beth was receiving Special Education services and relied on a 1:1 aid to access an extremely modified curriculum within the general education classroom. In 1997, her IEP team recommended she be placed in an Educational Life Skills (ELS) program due to not making progress on her IEP goals. The students in the …show more content…
The IEP team is then responsible for laying out when and to what extent the child is out of the LRE. IDEA entitles all children with disabilities to access public education, and must provide the child with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Due to Beth not making progress on goals, Beth was receiving few benefits from the mainstream setting. The IEP proposed a setting that would still provide access to non-disabled peers to the extent that was most appropriate for her to access her education in a way that was most meaningful to her as well as allow for academic progress. The Appeals Court stated that it appeared “the parents had confused the FAPE requirement with IDEA's Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement.” The parents were under the impression the mainstream setting was providing Beth some educational benefit and that was enough to continue on that setting. Obviously, the parents in this case were fighting for what they believed best for their daughter. However, they were overlooking the appropriateness of the setting and not considering they were hampering their daughter’s educational progress by disagreeing with the proposal to place her in the ELS class. The US Court of Appeals disagreed with the parents and found she was not benefitting in any way from her current instruction and it would be doing a disservice …show more content…
Beth’s parents seem to confuse LRE and FAPE, seeming to believe that the least restrictive environment, in this case the general education class, is the only appropriate option. However, the United States Court of Appeals agreed with both the district court and hearing officer, saying that the school district’s recommendation to move Beth to the ELS class is an example of an appropriate education.
“So long as the regular classroom confers ‘some educational benefit’ to Beth, they argue…the school district cannot remove her from that setting. This language is misplaced. The Rowley holding applies only to the school district’s responsibility to provide a FAPE — a requirement that analyzes the appropriateness of the district’s placement — not the appropriateness of the ELS alternatives, including the regular education classroom” (See Reference 3). The court here understands the commitment and dedication of the family to their daughter’s case, yet also recognizes that they do not understand to the fullest extent the benefit of a general education class as compared to a contained