Special Ed Case Special Education

Special Ed Case

Special Education Case Study

The case study that is presented to us for this exercise includes many of the problems and complications that special education students and their families and support systems face. The primary problem as outlined in the case study is that there is disagreement between the guardians of J.J. (the student whose case is being presented) and the members of the IEP team. It seems clear from the facts with which we are presented that this primary problem actually encompasses secondary problems too that are tacit rather than explicit.

This too is common in special education cases: What is identified as the primary problem by either the IEP team or the student's family is often an artifact of secondary problems and issues. The following analysis demonstrates how these two levels of problems are interlinked and how much of the solution for special education students so often requires such untangling.

In this case study, the IEP team is advocating that J.J. be encouraged to enter into community employment. The student has significant cognitive disabilities that suggest that he will not be able to pursue any further formal education in a successful manner. Because his academic level is at the fourth-grade level, it does seem as if further formal education within a school setting is likely to prove to be more frustrating for him than it would prove to be productive or to contribute to his goals.

The case study notes that he has been receiving vocational training and has been gaining work experience in a number of on-site job opportunities. The IEP team believes that at this point J.J. would not benefit from any additional education within the school setting but that he would be able to hold down a job successfully and thus be able to live either independently or semi-independently.

J.J.'s grandparents, who are his legal guardians, are opposed to such a community-placement because they do not believe that J.J. will be able to hold a job successfully. Moreover, they believe that his disabilities will lead him to be teased and bullied and they wish to save him from this. This is their explicit reason for objecting to the IEP team's proposal. What they do not say, but what seems likely is also a part of their objection, is that they do not want to lose the support of the school and a place for J.J. To go during the day.

A shift from a school setting for J.J. To a community setting will entail a much greater day-to-day responsibility on the part of the grandparents. They could be reluctant to assume such a level of increased responsibility for any number of reasons including the fact that they do not feel that they have the adequate resources to support J.J. Thus one of the key tasks that the IEP team members must take on is to assure the grandparents that they do have the resources to support J.J.

Providing emotional support to guardians is an essential part of the IEP team's function. It would also seem appropriate within the context of this particular case to offer some ongoing contact to the grandparents in terms of counseling to the grandparents. This may significantly reduce the stress that the guardians are likely to be feeling.

It may also be necessary for the members of the IEP team to remind the grandparents that the school and the district are limited in their responsibilities in terms of providing educational services to J.J. This limitation is summarized in the following passage:

Sometimes, disagreements about educational benefit are called "Cadillac-Chevrolet" disputes. Remember: In Rowley, the Supreme Court ruled that children are entitled to an appropriate education (i.e. A Chevrolet), not the best education money can buy (a Cadillac). http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html#Law_and_Regulations

The above accurately describes some of the limitations that public schools have to meet the needs of special education children. This may or may not be helpful to remind the grandparents of at this point in the process. It seem entirely likely that they know this (and certainly any well-run IEP program would have made this information known to the grandparents at the very beginning of the process) but the grandparents may need to be reminded of the legal limits for J.J.'s education.

It is significant that one of the most important objections that the grandparents have is that J.J. will face emotional abuse at work rather than the fact that he will be unable to keep a job. They are worried about this second condition, but it does not seem to be paramount. They may also feel that the district has in an important way broken trust with them because they may well have believed that the district would provide full services through J.J.'s eighteenth birthday and possibly even through his twenty-first birthday. If the IEP team and the district did not inform the guardians that this was a possibility, then they should probably apologize to them. If they had already informed the grandparents of this fact, then the IEP team members should (gently) remind the family that they have done so.