There is one major issue in the case of the District. The District accepted that it has not given specialized education services, as illustrated by the IPEs (Mitchell, 2012). This was due to inadequate competent staffs, to provide the specialized services. The District and the Special Education director did not adhere to the principles of IDEA. The District must have free and appropriate education. The specialized education services must be entirely provided at the expense of the public. Adequate evaluation should be provided to every child who is suspected to have disability. The District did not conduct the evaluation exercise, to determine the number of children with disabilities, and the nature of the disabilities. Due to inadequate staffs, the IEP was not effectively implemented. The IEP illustrates the obligation of the public agency to provide specialized services. Only a few students benefited, and many lesson hours were missed.
Learners with disabilities must adequately access the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). This is through effective use of the general education classes and curriculum. The district is presently underway to hire an agency that can effectively provide the general curriculum and classes. This is because the agencies are competently equipped to offer the specialized services. Adequate participation of both parents and students in the decision making process should be ensured. The parents seems to understand the benefits of the specialized education to learners wit h disabilities. This is the reason why they filed a complaint against the District for the poor implementation of the special education program. The procedural safeguards are weak in the District (Mitchell, 2012). This is because the children with disabilities do not receive special education, in an appropriate environment.
The findings illustrate that the district did not adhere to the IEPs. This is by failing to ...Show more