Application of Court Cases and Reading Materials

Application of Court Cases and Reading Materials
Student’s Name
Institution
Application of Court Cases and Reading Materials
Question One: Latoya’s Case
Under the Individual Disability Education Act (IDEA), Latoya’s parents have a right to fight for inclusive and appropriate education for their child. One of the main purposes of IDEA is to ensure that every child with a disability has “available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living (Wrightslaw, 2018).” Under IDEA, Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is defined as special education and related services that are provided free of charge and are in compliance with an individualized education program (IEP). IEP is a written document that is developed by a team to ensure that the unique educational needs of a child with disabilities are met (Wrightslaw, 2018). IEP states the child’s “present levels of academic achievement and functional performance as well as “measurable annual goals”, among other things. In the case of Latoya, the school did not provide the parents with information about Latoya’s performance in the general education classroom, which means that this information was missing in the IEP. Also, the IEP should provide a statement of why a child will not be included in the regular classroom (Wrightslaw, 2018). Yet, Latoya’s parents did not receive such an explanation. Thus, the IEP was not sufficient since it lacked such crucial information. Also, the goals provided by the IEP were below Latoya’s needs since she had achieved them while in third grade, according to her parents. The goals stated in the IEP should not only be measurable but should also meet the educational needs of the child and enable them to “make progress in the general education curriculum (Wrightslaw, 2018).” How could Latoya’s educational needs be met if she had already mastered the goals in her new IEP? Latoya’s parent can use the court's statement in Endrew v. Douglas County School District, which was that “to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances (Endrew, 2016).”
Also, under IDEA, a child with a disability should be provided with their educational needs within the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). This means that to the “maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are non-disabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Wrightslaw, 2018).” Latoya’s parents can use this element of IDEA to argue for Latoya’s inclusion in the general education cla...