Published on August 23, 2014
2 Applications of Law Sonya Case Study Ed 512: Special Education Law Professor Cossette 6/15/2014 Chris Whitney 3 Applications of Law Sonya Case Study Questions Legal Issues 1. The easiest thing to see when looking at how the scores differ from the whole student numbers to the subcategory numbers is that the disabled group struggled significantly with both reading in math. Math especially was to an extent where the overall scores would be effected drastically in a negative manner. A 1.8 percent score is a low enough score where it could threaten the whole school’s ability to meet their AP. In this case this particular school would need the help of the Safe Harbor subgroup to keep this low score from taking away their chance to meet AYP. As a whole the students met their goals, with reading being met with a 10.7 percent margin, but math was very close, with only a 1.2 percent margin, which could easily be low from the scores of the students with disabilities (Weishaar, 2007, p. 31). 2. This is a tricky situation because in a way the administrator’s choice to have the students take an alternative exam has good intentions and it would seem to help the students avoid a hostile learning environment, but it doesn’t quite work out as such. In order for this to work according to IDEA it would have to be a provision written into every student’s IEP, if not it could potentially be going against the IEP, which would make it illegal to do. As for NCLB the problem is that this essentially removes the Safe Harbor rules and uses the scores against the school because they no longer have the numbers to meet a subgroup. This administrator could be in significant trouble at a parental level through IEPs, district level through IEPs and AYP and a legal level because of the fact that several IEPs could be ignored in this.