1. Sterns is not justified in his decision to place the student in only non-academic regular classrooms. He must look at the student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to determine the best course of action. The IEP is not formulated by one person, it is a collaborative effort between the parents of the child with a disability, regular education teachers, special education teachers, administrators, and in some cases, a representative of an educational agency, with the intention of allowing a disabled student to succeed in their education. Sterns should not dismiss the parents' request out of hand, because that opens him up to litigation from the parents for violation of due process. Every child has a right to a free public education, and placing the students in a regular classroom is almost always preferred to a special classroom environment. The IEP will allow a disabled student to reach their potential in the regular classroom with accommodations and modifications, therefore he does not need to worry that the outstanding academic reputation of his school will be damaged.
2. The request from the parents is absolutely reasonable. Their thinking is in line with the IDEA, which,
…show more content…
Special education law is very clear in respect to what type of education the student is entitled to. Each child is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Section 504 of IDEA states that, "No otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance" (Mandlawitz, 2004, p. 97). Therefore, as long as the IEP is in place to maximize the student's potential to learn, the student should be allowed to the same level of education as her peers who are not disabled. Also, because the IEP is reviewed every year, we can be sure that the plan is adjusted as the child's needs may change and grow. It can also be added to and changed at any time by calling a meeting and changing the IEP through an