Free Appropriate Public Education

 

need to answer the following questions.
 
1.What are 3 procedural violations that may impede a child’s right to FAPE?
2.What are the 4 related services that fall under the definition of FAPE in
IDEA?
3.Briefly describe the Court’s intent with their decision regarding FAPE
in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) and the 2-part test that came from the
ruling.
4.What are your thoughts on what is an “appropriate” education versus what
is ideal?
5.the critical appraisal of the articles, and a brief statement of application to
occupational therapy practice.

 

1.The three procedural violations that could impede a child’s right to FAPE, i.e. Free Appropriate Public Education, are that the engaging action are a pre- determined planning for the placement and that it depicts like the parents are being denied form the process of decision making and also by not sharing those evaluative information with the parents and thereby most importantly, there remains the consistent failure to provide recommendations with sufficient amount of clarity, which cause the violation, which impede the child’s right to FAPE and utmost effect is on the deprivation of the educational benefit (IDEA Regulations, 2012, 34 C.F.R. §300.513[a][2][i–iii]).

2.The 4 related services that fall under the definition of FAPE in IDEA, are those special education services which are given at open cost and also under the direction of the public and must be without a charge, 2ndly, the services must be in perfect alignment with the standards so set and established by the state educational agency, 3rdly, services must also include a preschool which is appropriate with the addition of elementary and also the secondary school and finally, the services are given in congruity with the individualized training program (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 [a][9][A–D]). (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 1982), US Supreme Court decided that the, (Education of the Handicapped Act, 1975), which is renamed as the (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] )in 1990, is not in requirement of any special instruction and the Court further clarified that there is also no requirement of supportive services, which are often provided by the State Government for the disabled students, in order to make them a solid learner, but the landmark case further specified and made it clear that, the instructions and the services must be in such a way, that it will allow the child in benefitting out of that instruction.

3.Appropriate education is the one where the target students are identified and are provided with the education which are most appropriate for them, or in other words, an appropriate education is the one which makes the student benefit out of it and the teachers or the mentors or the educational planners are in the same alignment an are focused to meet the expectation of the child or children as the case may be, but on the other hand, ideal education is the resolution of the multidimensional issue. The word ideal only means perfect in all its way and to provide an education which is ideal, is not only focused in creating the student so that they can earn a living by working in the world, but also an ideal education help the student in such a way that they are empowered to change the world in an ideal environment, so the focused group in ideal education is the full global community unlike the appropriate education which is designed only for a single community or a particular country or a focused neighborhood. 

4.In (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 1982), United States Supreme Court decided that the, Education of the Handicapped Act of 1974, which is renamed as the (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] ) in 1990, is not in requirement of any special instruction and the Court further clarified that there is also no requirement of supportive services, which are often provided by the State Government for the disabled students, in order to make them a solid learner, but the landmark case further specified and made it clear that, the instructions and the services must be in such a way, that it will allow the child in benefitting out of that instruction. Amy Rowley, was deaf student and was in requirement of a sign language interpreter, which was refused by the school, and subsequently the parents of Amy lost their case to New York Commissioner of Education and appealed against the decision and contended that refusal to provide a sign language interpreter is violation of (Education of the Handicapped Act, 1975),which guarantees free and appropriate public education, Court held in favor of the School and further added that providing sign language interpreter is not mandated by law. In (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist., 2017), United States Supreme Court held that, the (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] ), creates a mandate for the schools to provide to its students an education which is reasonable according to the circumstances of the child, which in other words mean that the school must provide that education which will help the child to progress. A customer focused approach if can be distinguished and then make it engaged will help in encouraging the ideal customer benefits, which will then exhibit the logical and all-encompassing methodology in Occupational therapy practice. The emphasis on result is initiated in the assessment stage when focused results are recognized and then the changes or the adjustments so needed are made all through the mediation stage, where the result is guided toward engagement in occupation to support the participation to it.

Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now

We have some amazing discount offers running for the students

Place Your Order

References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (US Supreme Court 1982).
Education of the Handicapped Act. (1975). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist., RE–1, 580 U.S. (2017) (US Supreme Court 2017).
IDEA Regulations, 2012, 34 C.F.R. §300.513[a][2][i–iii]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.513
IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 [a][9][A–D]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1401
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

Get Quality Assignment Without Paying Upfront

Hire World's #1 Assignment Help Company

Place Your Order