COMMDIS416 1nd Edition Lecture 10Outline of Last LectureI. Public LawII. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997 Reform)III. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004 Reform)IV. Instructional Support V. SLPs Role on Student Support Team VI. Key Elements of Special Education Process VII. Informed Parental Consent VIII. Special Education Services IX. Special Education Services-The Referral Process X. Steps in the Special Education Process Outline of Current Lecture I. Individualized Education Plan (IEP)II. Case 1: L.I.III. Case 2: M.S.IV. Summary Current Lecture<<Individualized Education Plan- Two Case Studies>>I. Individualized Education Plan - To qualify for special education and related services, the student must be considered eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA).- To receive special education and related services, a child must have a disability and the disability must impact their educational performance.- Federal regulations allow each state to independently determine what is considered an “adverse impact” on educational performance.- Under IDEIA, the school has the responsibility for evaluating the child and determining eligibility for special education and related services.-Eligibility Determination/Classification- If the parents disagree with the schools evaluation/eligibility determination they may challenge it in an impartial hearing or a due process hearing. If the parents disagree with this ruling, they can challenge it in federal court.II. Case 1: L.I. o Maineo Performed academically well until 4th gradeo Emotional issues: stress, anxiety, depressiono Miss school, self-induced harm (scratching)o Attended counseling – little progresso Withdrawn, spent most of the time aloneEligibility Determination: Ineligible: Disability: Emotional impairment (an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression) Academic Impact: No significant adverse impact on academic performance Parents challenged finding at an impartial hearing  Hearing officer supported schools decision – although L.I. had an eligible disability condition, it did not affect her ‘educational performance.’ Parents appealed to federal courtThe court reversed the school district’s decision: The school challenged the federal court’s decision U.S. First Circuit of Appeals held in the parents favor, finding that Maine’s definition of ‘educational performance’ encompasses more than academic proficiency (e.g. non-academic areas and extracurricular activities.  The court determined that the purpose of education is not merely the acquisition of academic knowledge, but also to cultivate the skills/behaviorsneed to succeed in life.Court – LI’s social communication difficulties – isolation, self-mutilation: Non-verbal communication is an important skill to be learned in Maine’s curriculum The court concluded that LI’s social deficits adversely impacted her educational performance and directed the school to reconvene the Pupil Evaluation Team and develop and appropriate IEP.III. Case 2: M.S. Minnesota Kindergarten – M.S. was diagnosed with Asperger's and determined eligible for special education services.  2nd grade – academic skills progressing at an age-appropriate level – strong intellectual and verbal abilities.M.S. was declassified (Declassification=no longer needs IEP)  Teacher began to report difficulty in classroom –inappropriate licking, touching, difficulty with change, weak socialization skills, easily distracted by sounds/smells.o Mother requested impartial hearing/mediation (both sides come together, and present their arguments to make a decision) o School did not challenge whether M.S. had Asperger’s, but whether the disorder affected her educational performance.o The hearing officer overturned the school’s decision “Despite M.S.’s average to above-average grades, her condition adversely affects her educational performance. Her problems with peer interaction and high level of anxiety make it difficult for her to function in the classroom.”IV. Summary In the cases of L.I. and M.S., the schools conceded at some point that the child had a disability as defined under IDEIA. Because each child achieved academic progress on par with their peers, their schools determined that their disability did not adversely affect their education performance.  Narrow view of ‘educational performance’ Eligibility decisions contested – ruling in parent’s