Special Education Case Summary

1104 Words5 Pages

Summary of Case
M.W. was a student born in March of 1997. Early in M.W.’s life, she had complications that required tubes to be placed in her ears. At that time, testing revealed mild hearing loss. From the time M.W. began school, she “encountered significant difficulties in areas of reading and math...” and “with her ability to organize her schoolwork and succeed on standardized tests.” (Phyllene W. v. Huntsville Board of Education, 2015, p. 6-7) In the second grade, M.W. was assessed for special education services. Her vision and hearing fell within the normal range, but she qualified for services for learning disabilities. Over the next few years, services were adjusted in the IEP to meet the needs of M.W. For example, dyslexia was …show more content…

v. Huntsville Board of Education, 2015, p. 4). In other words, this case was looking at whether a free and appropriate public education was being offered. This is done using a two part test. First, did the district comply with the due process procedures set up in IDEA. Second, was the IEP developed in a way that could be reasonably calculated to enable to child to receive educational benefit (Phyllene W. v. Huntsville Board of Education, 2015, p. 5). IDEA creates a presumption that the placement in the IEP is correct and it is the responsibility of M.W.’s parents to prove otherwise. M.W.’s mother claimed the district did not comply with procedural requirements because it did not evaluate her daughter in a timely or comprehensive way. In addition, she claims the district did not provide adequate or appropriate programs to ensure M.W. would make progress. If a parent disagrees with a district’s decision regarding an IEP, they may appeal to a state educational agency, which will hold a due process hearing before an administrative law judge. In this case, the ALJ sided with the district. M.W.’s mother appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, where her appeal was rejected. She further appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of