In Case Study 12.1, is about Nicky. Around the age of 6 month, Nicky was mistreated by her father leading to her becoming blind, deaf, and dependent on technology to get food and liquids. Nicky’s grandmother, Vera petitioned for custody of Nicky. Charlette, Nick’s mother, is still very much involved in her daughter’s life. Charolette’s grandparents have moved from Mississippi to help raise Nicky. Nicky has been in school since she was 1 year old. Raintree Montessori School has been open to teaching Nicky. Nicky seem to be dependant on consistency with her health and school. If one were to go wrong it will affect the other (Amatea, 2013). Public Law 94-142 requires children with disabilities who are school-age be provided with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (Amatea, 2013, p. 306). This makes it illegal for the local public school to deny Nicky a public education. This law does not apply to private schools. Raintree Montessori School does not have to provide a free appropriate public education to Nicky (Amatea, 2013). If child has been placed in a private setting due to an IEP team decision the school district remains to hold the responsibility of the IEP. If the public school is providing services to a private school the public school is responsible …show more content…
There are a large amount of adults involved in Nicky’s care. Vera would be required to be at the IEP meetings because she is the legal guardian of Nicky. Charolette and her grandparents should attend because they are actively involved in Nicky’s daily life. It would be a struggle for a teacher to involve all of these individuals in activities. By including this many family members the teacher would be able to use knowledge about the family to help plan for Nicky’s services. The teacher will able to establish a professional relationship with all the adults involved in Nicky’s care (CEC,