Which principle of IDEA was challenged in this case?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is a law that has undergone many changes to help the disabled to access proper education in schools including public ones. The core principle that was being challenged in this movie was the right of the disabled Stephen Jeffers, who was autistic, to free and appropriate education in the public school if they qualify despite their disabilities. The issue was that the School District had offered to Stephen Jeffers a program that would not qualify as appropriate according to the standards of the IDEA. Since the parents had already withdrawn their child and taken him to a private school where they witnessed significant improvement, they requested to be reimbursed the tuition they had paid, leading to the disagreement that landed them in this situation.
Which witness was the weakest and why?
In the process of hearing, there are numerous scenes where the witnesses are presented, and it sometimes becomes a bit easy to spot the witness that seemed to have been the weakest of the ones who took the stand. This assessment lies between the occupational therapist, the special education teacher, the child psychologist, the mother, the program supervisor and finally the school principal. I would argue that the occupational therapist who took the stand as a witness for the school. The reason for this selection is that this doctor spent the least time with Stephen Jeffers, meaning that she could not testify to the progress or lack of it thereof that the child had achieved or not. Furthermore, there were hints of contradiction in what she said and the arguments that had been made for the school.
What was the key rationale provided by the district as to why they should not pay for Stephen’s tuition?
The School District could have received a favored ruling and not pay the Jeffers their tuition money because the program that they had selected TEACCH. The rationale would have been that the program was sufficient to make Stephen Jeffers had it been given time because it was claimed that the approach would have enhanced skills such as imitation and joint attention.
What was the key rationale provided by the defense as to why the district should pay for the tuition?
The argument here was that when Stephen Jeffers had enrolled into the private school, he improved regarding speech. He could now utter about a hundred words as opposed to the previous situation where he was non-verbal, and all these had happened in a few months’ time (Wright, 2016). It had appeared that he Applied Behavior Approach, also known as ABA or the Lovaas approach had been working better than the program that the public school had initiated for Stephen Jeffers called TEACCH.
Which side do you feel prevailed in this case and why?
I think the side of the parents prevailed more because their presentation was unflawed, apart from the initial errors they made, which nearly got them dismissed. The District’s request for dismissal could be attributed this event and it took the parents by surprise nearly costing the case. Their limited law knowledge had could not have prepared them for the formality needed in this situation. Despite this fact, the Districts witnesses failed to be convincing to me especially because of their contradictory arguments and the witness’ loss of flow of factual information while testifying. The hearing officer, just like myself was to side with the mother’s side also because of her testimony since it was specific and the information seemed sincere and convincing, probably because she spends the most time with Stephen Jeffers. She had a proper understanding of the education system she felt was best for an autistic child, thereby swaying my judgment to her side.
References
Wright, P. (2016). Analysis of Henrico County School Board v R.T. Wrightslaw. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/henrico.rt.pwanalysis.htm
