In the case study about Michael that was presented in this question, I believe that this is unacceptable. Nonetheless, before indulging into the analysis of the scenario given in the question, it is vital to understand the requirements of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to scrutinize the situation appropriately. FAPE is a law that falls under Individuals and Disabilities Act (IDEA) as well as the Rehabilitation Act. Before the passing of the law, physically challenged children had no civil rights to acquire an education. Nonetheless, all this turned around for the better when the IDEA bill was passed in 1975.
At a glance, FAPE is an acronym for Free and Appropriate Public Education. This paper will go through the meaning of each letter in the acronym. Free means that all students with disabilities in the country are entitled to free education. The students will be educated at the expense of the public, and the parent will be free from fees obligation. Parents will also not be liable to pay the incidental costs (Samuels, 2015). Appropriate means the kid who has a disability has the right to receive the relevant for him/her. The system will be adjusted to meet the child’s needs as stipulated in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). IEP is a document structured to meet each physically challenged child’s individual needs.
On the other hand, public point out the public school system. All kids with disabilities, no matter the severity or nature of their disabilities, are entitled to get an education under public supervision like the majority of children. Lastly, educations refer to the fact that every child who have achieved the acceptable school-age, disabled or not, have the right to receive an education (Samuels, 2015). FAPE ensures that all kids with disabilities can receive all the services that come with public education as well as those particular individual needs outlined in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Moreover, the person educating the child is obliged to prepare the child for all the aspects of the future; the assets in question are independent living, future education, and employment.
Back to the case study, I believe that the action taken by the administrator within his school district was not acceptable; denying Michael $2000 per year on his placement cost is against the FAPE bill. The reason for this decision is based on the fact that the Michael’s IEP has gone through all the necessary eligibility criteria. Consequently, according to the IDEA, the school is obligated to cater to all the disabled student’s needs stipulated in the IEP. Moreover, the IDEA states that schools must provide the disabled student with the least restrictive environment attainable (Smith, 2013. As a result of this predicament, schools put a lot of effort into maintaining the student in a regular class, but sometimes the need for special classes with much fewer students can offer the individual attention that is needed by the student. Special guidance may also be needed for students who have severe disabilities, and it is the school’s responsibility, through funding from the government, to cater for these expenses. These cases relate to Michael’s in that he has emotional disability behavior and requires special education. Michael’s parent and his IEP team also decided that he needs therapeutic care; these were included in the IEP. Therefore, according to IDEA, Michael is entitled to free therapeutic placement, and neither the school nor the administrator has a right to deny him that (Smith, 2013).
In conclusion, it is clear, for the reasons mentioned above, that the school should pay for all of Michael’s therapeutic placement needs, and it would be unfair and unlawful to deny him this right.
Smith (2013, February 20). How to Navigate Your Child’s Education Plan, the IEP. Daily Herald. Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-319644118.html?
Samuels, C. (2015). Federal Guidance on Special Education Dispute Resolution Options – FAPE.org. Retrieved November 6, 2015.