Legal Case Analysis Case: Amada S. v. Webster City Community School District-Textbook page 38.

Summary: This case is about notice of meeting is important for meaningful parental participation in meetings. In this case the parents were given only 1 day of notice before the meaning and in turn were deprived of the ability to participate in the meeting by the lack of notice. Litigants Positions: Amanda S: Parents of Amanda S., a child that was classified as behavior disordered, was observed acting in an inappropriate and disruptive manner in a middle school classroom. The parents felt that the 1-day notice that they were given for the meeting did not comply with federal and state legal requirements. Written notice was not given. WCCSD: The school district orally asked the parent to attend an IEP meeting the day following a severe outburst of violent behavior. The parents agreed to date and time of the meeting. They attended the meeting and agreed to the placement changes the team wanted to make. The parents changed their minds later that day. Implications: The courts ruled in favor of the parents. They ruled that the parents were deprived of the ability to participate in the meeting by the lack of notice. Written notice is required when the team is planning a change in placement.

Legal Case Analysis Case: Taylor v. Vermont DOE: Textbook page 38 Summary: This case is about the effect of legal loss of parental rights. The noncustodial mother of a student with disabilities who wanted an independent educational evaluation for her daughter brought the case about. Litigants Positions Taylor: The noncustodial mother of a student with disabilities brought a suit against a school and the State Department of Education. The mother claimed that the school and state agency had illegally denied her request for and independent educational evaluation for her daughter under IDEA. She also claimed that her right to request for a due process hearing was violated. Vermont DOE: The parents divorce decree had given the father custody and sole educational decision-making authority. The father opposed the due process hearing. Implications: The courts of Appeals ruled that the mothers right to make educational decisions was removed under state law, therefore she did not qualify as a parent under IDEA, so she had no legal standing to challenge the local school or state departments decisions. However, a non-custodial parent would have access to records under FERPA unless the school district has been provided with evidence that there is a court order, State statute, or legally binding document relating to such matters as divorce, separation, or custody that specifically revokes these rights. 34C.F.R.99.4.

Legal Case Analysis Case: Clyde K. v. Puyallup SD: Textbook page 288-289 Summary: This case is about the least restricted environment. The court found that the student was not receiving academic benefits in the general education classroom and had regressed academically. Although appropriate aids and services had been provided and nonacademic benefits were minimal. Litigants Positions Clyde K: The parents of a fifteen-year-old student with Tourette Syndrome and Attention Deficit Disorder, filed for a due process hearing to continue the childs placement in inclusive setting. Puyallup SD: Despite extensive efforts by the school to provide supplementary services to facilitate successful inclusion, Ryan frequently displayed disrupted behaviors, taunted students with name-calling and profanity, insulted teachers with vulgar comments, directed sexually-explicit had several violent confrontations. After assaulting a teacher the district proposed a temporary placement in a self contained classroom. The parent initially agreed to the temporary placement but later changed their minds. Implications: The courts ruled with the school district. Adequate supplemental aides and services must be considered by school personnel to facilitate successful inclusion for students with disabilities. However, if the placement of the student interferes with the learning of themselves or other students, then a more restrictive placement may be required.