Due Process Video - Movie Review Example

Analysis of the Due Process Video The IDEA Principle that was challenged in the Stephen Jeffers v. School Board case is the Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) principle. The principle states that all children in the United States who have any disabilities category should be provided with public education that is free and appropriate (Yell, 2012). The education is provided for free because it is catered for through public expenses, and thus the parents do not meet any costs. The Individualized Education program (IEP) should be developed to achieve the unique needs of the student.

In the case, Stephen did not benefit from an appropriate education program offered by the school district. Thus the parent should be compensated for the financial expenses incurred in admitting Stephen to the private school with effective programs for learners having autism. The weakest witness in the due process hearing is the school district. This is because the district did not adopt an appropriate education standard and process for the learners experiencing the autism condition. The IEP requires the school district to provide appropriate and free education to all students experiencing disabilities.

The most effective witnesses are the parents. This is because they adequately understand that appropriate education should be legally provided for free. Hence, they should be compensated for meeting the costs of private education. The school district provided a significant rationale or explanation as to why Stephen’s tuition should not be paid or compensated. The board claims that it is only the disabled learners in the public education process who benefit from the free education. The private school education process for the disabled learners is not considered in the free education budget or the IDEA.

Hence, compensation should not be paid because Stephen was transferred to a private school. The parent of the disabled learners in the private schools should pay fully for the education expense. The defense team illustrated significant rationale explaining why the school district should compensate the parents. It is the legal responsibility for the school district to provide appropriate education to learners with autism like Stephen, at no cost to the parents. The district did not provide the appropriate education as illustrated through IDEA.

Thus the learners with autism were transferred to a private school with the appropriate education for the learners with autism challenges. It is only fair if the school board compensated the parents for the education expenses incurred. The school board is negligent, due to its inability of giving learners with disabilities appropriate education as illustrated through the IDEA law. I feel like the defense team prevailed and won the case argument. This is because the school district failed to illustrate effectiveness in the provision of free and appropriate education to the students having autism and other disabilities challenges.

Because of the best interest of the child, the parents are allowed to transfer their children to private schools that can offer the appropriate education. Thus, the school district should cater for the financial expenses incurred during the private education of the learners with disabilities cases. References"Surviving Due Process" video. http://www.wrightslaw.com/bks/dvddp/ Yell, Mitchell L. (2012). The Law and Special Education. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.