Students with Disabilities Enrolled at Educational Institutions - Case Study Example

Critical Review paper on with disabilities enrolled at educational s at all levels Issue In the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case, a section of parents of students with disabilities claimed that their children were not recognized and evaluated correctly, and due to that, their children were not offered appropriate special education services. These parents filed a lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, alongside a few state officials; in this case, the parents’ lawsuit alleged that Newark had failed to put in place adequate systems that would enable it to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On top of that, the lawsuit also alleged that the state of New Jersey had violated its constitutional obligation to oversee the implementation of IDEA requirements at the grassroots; in defense, the state of New Jersey filed a motion to dismiss citing a constitutional challenge to the implementation of the IDEA. According to the state of New Jersey, it was immune to private lawsuits regarding enforcement of the IDEA under the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment but the section of parents were not convinced by this argument. In their earnest search for justice, the section went ahead to seek intervention in defending the constitutionality of IDEA, which was eventually granted to them; in their battle to defend the constitutionality of IDEA, the section fronted two strong arguments as the foundation of their case. In their first argument, the section proposed that the state of New Jersey had accepted the federal IDEA funds that were meant to meet the cost of educating students with disabilities consequently agreeing to act in accordance with the IDEA by relinquishing its sovereign immunity. In the second argument, the section contended that following the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress had in fact genuinely repealed the state sovereign immunity, which the New Jersey was still claiming to have in its argument for a dismissal motion. Rule In accordance with the Rules 12(b) (1) and (b)(6), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the NJDOE and the State officials filed a motion of dismissal of the complaint by arguing that they were immune to the suit under the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment. They also held that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that given the state’s sovereign immunity, it was wrong for an injunctive relief to be entered against it, particularly because it was not the right subject of an order for the provision of free and appropriate public education. Type of Action In the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case, the parents took action to defend the constitutionality of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by filing a class action complaint to secure the rights of children with disabilities in the Newark Public Schools. In this action, the parents alleged that the defendants (Newark Public Schools), the state, as well as local government officials and entities had exploited the Eleventh Amendment to circumvent their obligation in enactment of the IDEA. The accused parties had shown little or no initiative at all in identifying and evaluating children for special education services, as well as providing litigants with special education and other related services. In addition to that, the plaintiffs held that the accused were not offering the children any relief in terms of compensatory education for the depriving them the special education services, which they were validly entitled to receive. Facts Here are the key factual bases of this case, firstly, the plaintiffs were the parents of six minors who were attending public schools in Newark at the time, and the children can be grouped into two groups based on their experiences. The first group, ES, GT, AO, and MM were never evaluated to determine their eligibility for special education services even though their parents repeatedly requested for the same, and they never benefitted from the implementation of IEPs. According to the recent interpretations of the IDEA, schools need to make accommodation decisions based on the recommendations of every student’s Individualized Education Program team (Horvath, Kampfer-Bohach & Jacqueline, 2005). The second group on the other hand, ODJ and AJE, were only evaluated as disabled children and granted special education services after many years of abandonment by both the local education agencies and the state. Plaintiff’s attorneys at the Education Law Center requested the NJDOE to investigate the complaint citing the several anecdotal evidences on July 24, 1998; the NJDOE reported that Newark had failed to establish a system of addressing the huge number of incomplete noncompliant initial cases. Furthermore, the NJDOE established that Newark was noncompliant with the requirements for identification and evaluation of potentially disabled children in its neighborhoods, thus, recommended corrective action. Plaintiffs report that despite the orders and assurances for corrective action and improvement plans, not even one of the students named in the complaint received the compensatory education they were entitled to get. Decision/Holding The district court decided to deny the state’s motions to dismiss in whole by holding that Congress had genuinely repealed the state’s sovereign immunity in the enactment of the Individual’s with Disabilities Act that it enjoyed under the Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, the court affirmed that the state had relinquished its Eleventh Amendment immunity the instance it accepted IDEA’s funds from the federal government to support special education services for individuals with disabilities. The court also discredited the state’s exhaustion arguments on the weight of the plaintiff’s alleged widespread systemic breakdown in the provision of free and appropriate public education. In a separate order, the court entered a preliminary injunction against all defendants because the state was a proper party to the order, and exercised its supplemental authority over the State law claims in the complaint. Following this ruling, the defendants filed an appeal to the court denial of their motion to dismiss but still the Appellate Section was in favor of the constitutionality of IDEA; moreover, the Third Circuit gave an opinion on the matter, further reaffirming the district court’s holding that the State of New Jersey had given up its sovereign immunity. Case Analysis The above case outcomes reaffirms that states have an obligation to oversee the implementation of IDEA at the local level, particularly because their immunity is waivered by acceptance of IDEA funds. Without doubt, the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case reaffirms that the US judicial system recognizes the importance of education and not even the children with disabilities should be deprived the benefits of free and appropriate public education. The country has reiterated the need for education for its citizenry to function productively in the American society, especially by participating effectively and intelligently in the open political system (Hannon, 1997). In yet another case involving Brown versus Board of education, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its belief that education is a vital need, when it ruled that children could not be expected to succeed in life if they are deprived education opportunities. Mostert (2004) affirms that disability is real and the unique characteristics of the different forms of disability determine the individualized education interventions that schools must provide for greater educational achievement of children with disabilities. As demonstrated by the section of parents of the children with disabilities in this case, it is evident that the court accords parents an active role in the planning of educational programs for children with disabilities. In this respect, parents who have reason to believe that their children are not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services should take the initiative to ensure corrective measures are taken. In this respect, children with disabilities are equally entitled to free and appropriate public education and training that suits their capacities (Moores, 2011); besides that, parents are entitled to mandatory notification of the changes in the education plans for their children, opportunities to appeal the changes, as well as access to their child’s records. For instance, schools that need to improve their education provisions to notify and involve parents in their strategies for doing so, especially because the role of parents goes beyond only sending their children to school (Teicher, 2007). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that schools set high academic standards by offering a rigorous curriculum that uses scientifically determined modes of instruction to cater for the varying needs of individual learners in the classrooms (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). The federal government requires that schools and professionals who are responsible for the provision of education ensure compliance with the requirements of the NCLB act or otherwise be held accountable for the failure of the children (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Notable in this decree is the fact that the federal government is not discriminative in its promise of academic success since it encompasses even students with disabilities, who have been excluded in some instances by being assumed uneducable (“Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities, 2008). The M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case confirms that children with disabilities can benefit from education programs at any point in their life and the cost of providing special education services for people with disabilities should not override the benefit of education. In compliance with the Individuals with Disability Education Act, educational opportunities must be provided to all on equal terms and schools should not overlook children with disabilities in accountability systems. In that respect, schools should promote educational attainment for all without discrimination by promoting access to the curriculum on which universal standards for all students are determined; children with disabilities must be assessed using tools that measure performance on these standards. The case highlights the evolution of the US education policy at the federal level to becoming more inclusive because of the recent Fourteenth Amendment, particularly because many students have previously been left out of the system based on race, gender, and ability. Today, education for every child in the US is a national policy that requires schools to alter their programs accordingly, to meet the individual needs of all sorts of learners in their classes; initially, federal policy had been silent on matters of education since it was the exclusive responsibility of the states. The case indicates that the federal government provides incentives for the states to implement the IDEA through provision of funds that go towards education of students with disabilities in the US. The states are required to ensure that children with disabilities at all levels receive quality education through standards-driven reforms; on top of that, states have received additional financing from the federal government to help improve standards of education and to set assessment standards to measure achievement. Federal intervention in the push for quality driven educational system for children has received varying responses from states with some state educators and policymakers perceiving the move by the federal government as unwarranted interference into local jurisdiction. The M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case indicates that some states like New Jersey may take advantage of the loopholes in the legislation to circumvent the IDEA by disregarding their obligation in enacting the act. Federal intervention is necessary to ensure that states honor their end of the bargain in ensuring enactment of IDEA since Congress’s intention to condition acceptance of IDEA funds on a state relinquishing its immunity portends ambiguity. This saw the state intervene to end the rampant failure of Newark students when it evicted the top administrators and elected a new one in its push for quality classroom instruction that ensures meaningful educational benefits to the learners, both with and without disabilities (MacFarquhar, 1996). From the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case, there is no doubt that by gladly accepting federal IDEA funds, states automatically relinquish their Eleventh Amendment immunity from future claims brought to them by private plaintiffs regarding the IDEA. In this respect, the court reaffirms that the conditions for the waiver are clear and unambiguous and that the state of New Jersey was well informed about the consequences; apart from that, Congress exercised its authority under the Spending Clause by conditioning the receipt of IDEA funds with the waiver of states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. With the Amendment to the IDEA, federal policy on education requires states to not only ensure access to free and appropriate education, but also access to individualized and specially designed instruction and assessment standards, as well as other related services. Courts today insist on the need to ensure meaningful progress that can be measured for each student since mere access to education is not sufficient to generate valued outcomes of employment, independence, or social involvement. The M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case shows that lowered expectations for students with disabilities leads to their exclusion from assessment both at the national and at the state levels, thus the shift in policy toward the broad focus on improving results in the general education. Congress’s insists on the children with disabilities’ access to the general curriculum and inclusion in the general assessment undertaken by their peers for maximum educational benefit and meaningful progress. Seclusion of students with disabilities from their peers might result to further psychological problems that are very difficult to address than their educational requirements, and still, physical restrain measures could result to bodily harm (Nishimura, 2011). The case underscores expert findings that the education for children with disabilities can be enhanced through research on tested methods of teaching and learning of this group, and by having high expectations for them while promoting their access to the general curriculum at all costs. For instance, one commonly used classroom instruction for teaching sight words is known as Direct Instruction flash cards, while reading racetracks help in promoting fluency in sight words for children with learning disabilities (Ulring, McLaughlin, Neyman & Waco, 2012). The National Center on Educational Outcomes requires that states must include 98% of all students in addition to 85% of those with disabilities in state assessments; exceptions are the students with the most severe disabilities who are allowed to sit alternative assessments established by teachers of each subject (Sherrill, 2005). The case proves that administrators and special needs children be aware of their duties and obligations, particularly by institutionalizing reforms and aligning themselves with the IDEA requirements because ignorance of the law is no defense. The procedural safeguards designed to ensure children with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education allow parents meaningful participation in education of their children. Recent policy changes require that deciding officers make a decision based on the ruling of whether or not free appropriate public education. School’s mere adherence to law requirements is not enough and results of students from special programs must be considered in accordance with the Congressional intention to promote access to meaningful educational benefits (Yell et al, 2008). The state’s interpretation of federal law regarding the enactment of IDEA was with no doubt flawed since it could not establish the Congress intent that conditioned the receipt of IDEA funds with the state’s waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity regarding the IDEA implementation. In the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case, the district court has jurisdiction over claims arising under the IDEA since the constitution grants that state courts may also be called upon to interpret and uphold federal laws (Kaplin Willium and Lee, Barbara). The court opinion on the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case provides a vital holding, which advocates can invoke and courts can use in deciding on similar claims in the future since it underscores the specific standards of measure that apply in such other incidences. The court holding highlights the relevant facts that need to be considered in the evaluation of similar legal issues and assistance in establishing the particular sources of law that resolves issues regarding the IDEA. The M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case asserts the power of operation of the public educational school law, which is delegated to Congress by the US constitution (Alexander and Alexander, 2012); in that case, Congressional enactments like the IDEA forms the foundations of public school law. The local state courts have a responsibility to the federal arm to interpret and enforce legislative intent in matters such as the education of children with disabilities; in the M.A. verses Newark Public Schools, case, legislative intent for waiver of state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity regarding enactment of the IDEA upon acceptance of IDEA funds is very clear and unambiguous. Whereas the US Department of Education is solely responsible for the promulgation of regulations touching on public schools, Congress must and only authorizes and approves them if they fall within the scope and intent of its acts. Conclusion The M.A. verses Newark Public Schools case validly upholds New Jersey’s waiver of State sovereign immunity provided for under the Eleventh Amendment regarding enactment of the IDEA since the IDEA genuinely abrogates sovereign immunity. In that matter, the provision of education and other related services for children with disabilities is a responsibility of the state, and states must ensure that children with disabilities not only access free and appropriate public education, but also promote access to meaningful educational benefits to all children on equal basis. References Kaplin, W.A., and Lee, B.A., (2007). The Law of Higher Education. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass. Alexander, K. and Alexander, D.M., (2012). American Public School Law (eighth Edition). Belmont: Wordsworth, Cengage Learning. Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in "no child left behind". The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163. Hannon, R. C. (1997). Returning to the true goal of the individuals with disabilities education act: Self-sufficiency. Vanderbilt Law Review, 50(3), 715-752.  Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11. Sherrill, C. (2005). Will the individuals with disabilities education act-2004 affect us? Palaestra, 21, 54-56. “Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities. (2008). Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. Moores, D. F. (2011). Waist deep in the big muddy* the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) and no child left behind (NCLB). American Annals of the Deaf, 155(5), 523-5. Yell, M. L., et al. (2008). Ensure compliance with the individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(1), 45-51.  Ulring, A. M., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Waco, T. (2012). The differential effects of direct instruction flashcards and reading racetracks on sight word accuracy for three elementary students with learning disabilities. Academic Research International, 2(2), 406-420. Nishimura, C. F. (2011). Eliminating the use of restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 16(2), 189-231. Mostert, M. P. (2004). A response to kauffmans the devaluation of special education. Education & Treatment of Children, 27(4), 325-340. Horvath, L. S., Kampfer-Bohach, S., & Jacqueline, F. K. (2005). The use of accommodations among students with deaf-blindness in large-scale assessment systems. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(3), 177-187. Teicher, S. A. (2007). Schools strive for no parent left behind ; public schools facing pressure to perform under no child left behind act are working to help parents be more engaged in their childrens educations. The Christian Science Monitor. MacFarquhar, N. (1996). After Newark takeover, hopes fade for quick fix of schools. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/11/nyregion/after-newark-takeover-hopes-fade-for-quick-fix-of-schools.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Read More