This case is focused around a 6 year old handicapped boy by the name of David R. David R. is mentally retarded and speech impaired due to Downs' Syndrome. His academic level at the time was equal to a 2 year old. His parents claimed that the State Board of Education refused to place their son in a classroom with nonhandicapped children which violated the Education of the Handicapped Act. David completed one year in the Early Childhood Program. Then his mother requested that he become a part of a class with nonhandicapped children. Due to this request, David attended Pre-K for half a day and Early Childhood Program the other half. However, David could not participate in class without constant one-on-one supervision. The teacher became concerned that her other students were not getting the attention they deserved. At this time, the Admission, Dismissal, and Review committee determined that a Pre-K classroom was not the appropriate setting for David. It was then determined that David would only attend the Early Childhood Program, but he would be able to eat lunch with nonhandicapped peers. David's mother and father appealed the decision that David could not participate in the regular education classroom on several occasions. After viewing the evidence, it was still determined that a Pre-K classroom was not the place for David. The committee stated that the curriculum was too advanced for David's level of ability and he was not receiving any educational benefit from being in a regular classroom. Being displeased with the decisions of the school board and the committee, David's parents sent him to a private school. Still, David's mother wanted him mainstreamed in order to provide him with interactions with nonhandicapped children. After all was said and done, even after reviewing the mainstreaming act, the decision remained that the regular classroom was not the appropriate place to meet David's needs.
As a result of this case, children who are mainstreamed into a regular classroom are looked at carefully to see if a regular classroom is the best place for them. It is not fair for many other students to miss out on an education because one student who is severly disabled demands all of the teacher's attention. For those students who do not fare well in a regular classroom, self-contained classrooms have been developed. These classes have very few students as well as a teacher plus several assistants. This allows for these students to get the attention they may need without being a disruption to many other students. If possible, these students are mainstreamed into regular classrooms for certain portions of the day. This way they can interact with nonhandicapped children.
Hi Regina,
ReplyDeleteI think that this decision was a fair one because it was looked at three times and the same decision was made each time. I can see how if one student takes all of the teacher's time, the other ones will not get the attention they are supposed to have. I am curious though, if anyone thought of having a "mentor" type person in the class with David during the day so that he could have stayed some in a regular classroom with his peers. It is just a thought but I wonder if it could have worked out this way?
Elizabeth
I have seen students participate in classroom activities with the help of a one-on-one teacher assistant. I think that it is important to look at each individual case to see if the regular classroom is the best learning environment or if the child would be better served in a self-contained classroom. Every child and his or her needs are different.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this well-written summary. I was unfamiliar with the case and found it very interesting. I agree with the decision, as it did not sound like the class or David were gaining much from the mainstreaming. It would be interesting to know if he had a full time aide with him in the class or if the teacher had all the children on her own.
ReplyDeleteI think the decision was fair because they have given David a chance to be mainstreamed into a regular classroom but found that he and the other children in the class did not benefit from it. I wonder if David's special needs would have been met if a special education teacher worked with him some portions of the day while he still attended regular Pre-K. I think it is really important that they look at each individual child's strengths and needs before they place them in a regular classroom or a self-contained classroom so that the child will be provided with the appropriate services and resources that he/she needs.
ReplyDeleteThis case is closely related to the case I reviewed, Roncker vs Walter. I agree that it is not fair to the non disabled children if the child with special needs has a disruptive handicap. I do feel that it is important that, when at all possible, children with special needs be included in a classroom with non disabled peers. In Roncker vs Walter, the courts set up the principle of probability which are two questions that help determine which placement is appropriate for the individual. Great summary!
ReplyDelete