St. Bernard's Argument Against The FAPE
Probably so. The IDEA requires that a disabled student (1) receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that is (2) provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). A FAPE must provide the student with a “meaningful educational benefit” in light of his or her potential. Ms. Snyder will likely prevail on the FAPE requirement, because St. Bernard’s new plan will probably not confer a “meaningful educational benefit” upon Daniel in terms of his high potential. Ms. Snyder will probably succeed on her claim against the St. Bernard Parish Board, because the plan most likely fails to provide Daniel with a FAPE.
[LRE Requirement and Factors Omitted]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[Omitted]
DISCUSSION
. ST. BERNARD’S NEW PLAN PROBABLY VIOLATES …show more content…
A school district cannot defend an educational plan under which educational regression actually occurred by arguing that the student regressed less under the plan than if simply allowed to vegetate. Id.; see, Bd. of Educ. v. Diamond, 808 F.2d 987, 991 (3d Cir. 1986) (demanding that the school board confer a meaningful benefit to the plaintiff, a severely disabled student, by placing him in a highly specialized SE program rather than a GE one because his skills and behavior were deteriorating in his GE placement, thereby rejecting the board’s defense that the student was worsening less when mainstreamed than if left …show more content…
Snyder ’s case, it is likely that St. Bernard’s new IEP to mainstream Daniel at Union violates the FAPE requirement, because the IEP is unlikely to provide “significant learning” and confer a “meaningful educational benefit” to Daniel in view of his high potential. Polk, 853 F.2d at 182, 184. That is, Daniel will probably be considered to have high educational abilities, because he has a “gifted” IQ of 135 (Urquhart Letter 1), has earned praised for his artistic talents, and successfully read at the fourth grade level as a first grade student (Johnson Mem. 2). Accordingly, a FAPE requires that the benefit he receives be “meaningful” in terms of those abilities and potential. Ridgewood, 172 F.3d at
[LRE Requirement and Factors Omitted]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[Omitted]
DISCUSSION
. ST. BERNARD’S NEW PLAN PROBABLY VIOLATES …show more content…
A school district cannot defend an educational plan under which educational regression actually occurred by arguing that the student regressed less under the plan than if simply allowed to vegetate. Id.; see, Bd. of Educ. v. Diamond, 808 F.2d 987, 991 (3d Cir. 1986) (demanding that the school board confer a meaningful benefit to the plaintiff, a severely disabled student, by placing him in a highly specialized SE program rather than a GE one because his skills and behavior were deteriorating in his GE placement, thereby rejecting the board’s defense that the student was worsening less when mainstreamed than if left …show more content…
Snyder ’s case, it is likely that St. Bernard’s new IEP to mainstream Daniel at Union violates the FAPE requirement, because the IEP is unlikely to provide “significant learning” and confer a “meaningful educational benefit” to Daniel in view of his high potential. Polk, 853 F.2d at 182, 184. That is, Daniel will probably be considered to have high educational abilities, because he has a “gifted” IQ of 135 (Urquhart Letter 1), has earned praised for his artistic talents, and successfully read at the fourth grade level as a first grade student (Johnson Mem. 2). Accordingly, a FAPE requires that the benefit he receives be “meaningful” in terms of those abilities and potential. Ridgewood, 172 F.3d at