Case Study: Student with Special Needs Essay Andrew Robidas
Grand Canyon University
UNV 555
May 14, 2014

Case Study: Student with Special Needs Essay
Introduction
Beginning in the mid-2000s, more than six million kids ages between six and twenty-one were receiving special education and other needed special services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that was implemented starting in 1997. This was a twenty-five percent increase from 1993, where approximately 4.8 million children were getting special necessities. In today’s society, students who have disabilities are offered attention that is different from students who do not have disabilities in public schools and the court system. Before 1975, an administrator could refuse special services to student with disabilities if they did not exist. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). In addition, Congress also reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Both of these acts allowed disable students the opportunity to obtain a quality education, as well as prepared them for a future career and living on their own (GCU Lecture Notes 2010). The following essay identifies a problem that happened within a school regarding a disable student. It summarizes the problem and provides a thorough examination of reactions of the perceptions and conventions of those individuals involved in the problem. Finally, it discusses how this situation was handled in the court system.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009) On September 11, 1985, T.A was welcomed into this world. Since birth, he resided in the area of the Forest Grove School District. He attended school through the Forest Grove School District starting in kindergarten until he was a junior in high school. After the conclusion of his junior year, his parents registered him in a private school. During his public schooling years, T.A. had trouble staying focused to his studies and completing his assignments. With help from his loving and supportive family, he performed well academically without needing special education or relatable services (“Forest Grove,” 2009). In early 2001, T.A. was assessed for a learning disability to receive special education services. The staff at the public school made that notes that T.A. may possibly have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). By mid-2001, it was decided that T.A. did not have a learning disability and, therefore, was not entitled to obtain special education. Despite the conclusion, no follow-ups ever took place concerning a possible 504 plan in a psychologist’s information or the possibility of ADHD from the school district (“Forest Grove,” 2009). In 2002, T.A. began abusing marijuana. His behaviors changed as a result from using this drug. In early 2003, he ran away from home. He was found and returned home within a few days. His parents took him to see another psychologist. This psychologist established T.A. to have “ADHD, depression, math disorder, and cannabis abuse” and suggested a housing program (“Forest Grove,” 2009). T.A. was enrolled into a residential private school designed to help children who have multiple problems. While in private school, his parents hired a lawyer and requested a directive for the school district to perform a thorough evaluation. In mid-2003, the evaluators gathered to decide if T.A. was entitled for assistances under IDEA. The school officials recognized T.A. had learning problems, ADHD, depression, but most of them felt that he was not eligible under IDEA because his diagnoses did not greatly impact his academic performance negatively. In August of 2003, another team met and decided that T.A. was not entitled to assistances or adjustments under 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Forest Grove,” 2009). In early 2004, an opinion was issued from a Hearing Officer referring to an administrative hearing held in September of 2003. She claimed that T.A. was restricted and entitled under IDEA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for special education. She also stated that the school district was accountable for reimbursing the tuition of the private school T.A. attended, which was $5,200 per month (“Forest Grove,” 2009). The school district fired back, disagreeing that the Hearing Officer made a mistake by allowing repayment of T.A.’s private school instruction. The school district argued that the repayment was not necessary because T.A. left the public school setting with not giving earlier intentions. The school district also stated that he at no time was given special education or linked services from them. Finally, the school district indicated that T.A. left public school due to drug abuse and behavioral troubles and not for reasons associated with his disability (“Forest Grove,” 2009). In December of 2009, the district court overturned the Hearing Officer’s allowance of repayment to T.A. The district court accepted all of the Hearing Officer’s factual discoveries, but made known that the Hearing Officer lawfully made a mistake in allowing private school tuition repayment. The parents had sent their son to private school due to behavioral troubles and drug abuse. The parents had failed to mention ADHD as one of the reasons when applying to the private school. Due to this, behavioral troubles and substance abuse were not limitations protected under federal rule. After hearing the decision, the parents made known that they would appeal the verdict to the Ninth Circuit (“Forest Grove School Dist.,” 2009).
Conclusion
In review, beginning in the mid-2000s, more than six million kids ages between six and twenty-one were receiving special education and other needed special services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that was implemented starting in 1997. This was a twenty-five percent increase from 1993, where approximately 4.8 million children were getting special necessities. In today’s society, students who have disabilities are offered attention that is different from students who do not have disabilities in public schools and the court system. Before 1975, an administrator could refuse special services to student with disabilities if they did not exist. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). In addition, Congress also reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Both of these acts allowed disable students the opportunity to obtain a quality education, as well as prepared them for a future career and living on their own (GCU Lecture Notes 2010). The following essay identified a problem that happened within a school regarding a disable student. It summarized the problem and provided a thorough examination of reactions of the perceptions and conventions of those individuals involved in the problem. Finally, it discussed how this situation was handled in the court system.

References
Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009). Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/08/9th.forest.grove.ta.htm
Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. (2009). Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZS.html
Grand Canyon University Topic 3 Lecture Notes. (2010). Retrieved May 14, 2014, from https://lc-grad2.gcu.edu/learningPlatform/user/users.html?operation=loggedIn#/learningPlatform/loudBooks/loudbooks.html?viewPage=current&operation=innerPage¤tTopicname=Individuals With Disabilities&topicMaterialId=22d8c150-6881-4013-9c0c-c7fd00cd56c7&contentId=43ad5b7d-f597-41df-b0b6-963ed578d446&