Jarron draper

Legal Cases Review

[Insert Name]

Lamar University

Legal Cases Review

This paper will review two different court cases that involve special education assessment and evaluation. The cases will be identified and summarized. Implications for future practice in special education will be discussed. Finally, the two court cases will be compared.

Legal Cases: Identification

The first case that will be reviewed is Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System (2008). This case relates to special education assessment because the initial assessment has been deemed flawed because he was not assessed for a specific learning disability, despite showing signs of dyslexia at an early age (Draper v. Atlanta, 2008). The school district also failed to reevaluate the student after three years as required by law (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The participants in this case are Jarron Draper, the plaintiff, and the Atlanta Independent School District.

The second case that will be reviewed is Amanda. V. Clark County School District, (2001). This case relates to special education assessment because the school district failed to provide the parents the results of the assessments and recommendations for further evaluations (Amanda v. Clark, 2001). The participants in this case are Amanda, (student), Annette, (parent), and the Clark County School District.

Legal Cases: Summary

Draper. v. Atlanta, (2008).

In Draper v. Atlanta, (2008), the student had reportedly been struggling since kindergarten. The student’s teachers recommended that he be tested in 1995, 1996, and 1997 to discover the cause of his academic difficulties (Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System, n.d.). This case truly begins when the student was in the fourth grade and the parent gave initial consent for an evaluation in February 1998. The student was then evaluated in June 1998. The results of the evaluation were reviewed in January 1999 and it was that determined that he had a mild intellectual disability and was placed in a self-contained classroom. The parents sought outside tutoring opportunities for their child. In 2003, five years after his initial evaluation, the parents insisted on another evaluation. This evaluation showed some discrepancies between the scores and the student’s true ability, so the school psychologist recommended further testing. The school wanted to continue to classify the student as having an intellectual disability, but the parents insisted on additional testing. Eventually, after even more testing, the student was diagnosed as having a specific learning disability consistent with dyslexia and the school was given recommendations of services for the student. Even with these recommendations, the student continued to receive the same reading program and was not successful in his classes.

It was argued that the school district did not provide free, appropriate public education (FAPE) by not reevaluating him in the correct time frame and by continuing to use a reading program that was not successful for the student. The family also claimed that they did not properly assess him and placed him into an inappropriate classroom setting. The school district argued that the family should have been aware of the initial misdiagnosis and misplacement.

Because of the denial of a FAPE, the court ruled that the student be able to attend a private school to receive his high school diploma. The court ruled that the Atlanta Public Schools pay for transportation, evaluations, and tuition for the student to receive his education. The school district tried to appeal this decision, but the decision was upheld in appeals court (Draper v. Atlanta, 2008).

School districts today are consistently monitoring the timeline of evaluations. This could be a result of this case. School districts today are very specific and mindful of special education timelines, and try to stay in compliance with the law.

Amanda v. Clark, (2001).

In Amanda v. Clark, (2001), the student was placed in the district’s early childhood program to help determine her eligibility for special education, due to difficulties with communication and daily living skills. In March 1995, the student was evaluated by the district, and the school district claims to have shared their recommendations and results with the parents. The initial evaluation suggested autism tendencies and recommended further evaluation. The parents deny receiving the recommendation for further evaluation by a child psychiatrist. The report was not given to the student’s mother. There was no documentation that the results were discussed with the parents, even though the evaluation showed a severe autism rating (Amanda Annette v. Clark County School District, n.d.). In April 1995, a team determined that the student is eligible for special education for developmental delays, but the parent was not given a copy of the report. The parent only received a summary of observations. The student was diagnosed with autism by an outside source in January 1996, which was confirmed by another source in February 1996. When this information was brought to the district in April 1996, the parents were informed that the school suspected autism the previous year (Amanda v. Clark, 2001).

It is argued that the school denied the student a FAPE by misidentifying her as developmentally delayed instead of autistic. The parents argued that they were not informed of the recommendation of further evaluation and were not informed of the possibility of autism. The parents claim that they were not given copies of the repots. The school argued that the information was told to the parents

The court ruled that by withholding critical information from the parents, the school did deny the student a free and appropriate public education.

Procedural safeguards are now in place in public schools, which ensures that the parents receive all information regarding evaluations, recommendations, and findings. Parents and other participants in the meetings are required to sign documentation stating receipt of the documentation.

Future Practice

These cases could have been avoided if certain procedures had been followed. If the proper timeline had been followed in Draper v. Atlanta (2008), the discrepancies might have been identified earlier. This could have allowed a proper diagnosis to be given to the student. In Amanda v. Clark, (2001), the parents could have been notified of their daughter’s possible disability if the school had given the copies of the reports. The parents would have seen the recommendation for further evaluation and would have been able to seek that evaluation.

For future practice, the special education department should have professional-level timekeeping practices and record-keeping procedures. This would allow the department to be aware of reevaluations that are due and stay in compliance with the law. Another future practice would be to always document meetings with parents to ensure that there is proof of parental notification. This is especially important to remember to provide parents with copies of all required documents regarding their child’s IEP, evaluations, reports, and accommodations, and to document that the parent received these documents.