brief of case:Missouri Dept. of Elementary ED & Secondary ED v. Springfield R-12 SD & Lewis

Running head : DESE v . Springfield

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education v Springfield R-12 School District

Name

School

Professor

Course

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education v Springfield R-12 School District

1 . Style of Case : Administrative Case

2 . Facts : The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ) among others , provides that the district has a mandate to provide handicapped with free appropriate education . Katherine , who was deaf and blind resides in the Springfield R-12 School District (358 F .3d 992 . The district has been providing

her with appropriate educational program but not after seven years when behavioral situation of Katherine deteriorated . Katherine was then transferred to Perkins School for the Blind , a private school . However , the district suggested that the Missouri School for the Blind (MSB ) is the appropriate school for Katherine because of its proximity and educational costs . After three months , MSB notified the district that it cannot accept Katherine because it has no program suited for her and even recommended Perkins as the appropriate school . The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE , on the other hand , has assured the district that MSB can accept Katherine . The MSB , then , wrote a letter containing the types of program that is needed to be created for Katherine . The letter was interpreted by the district and DESE as an acceptance which was denied by the MSB until more denials and debate of responsibilities occurred The parents of Katherine d for due- process case under the IDEA while Katherine was in Perkins . At the latter part , the district gave Notice of Action to Katherine 's parents proposing the transfer of the latter to MSB . In response , Katherine 's parents d a due- process under IDEA

The panel who was commissioned to hear the case found that MSB cannot afford the appropriate public education , the district shall pay the cost of Katherine 's stay in Perkins , and DESE must provide for special- education for severely- handicapped students which cannot be provided by the district schools , among others

3 . Issue : Did Katherine receive the appropriate educational benefits due to her

4 . Holding : The district court affirmed the findings of the administrative panel . The Court of Appeal also affirmed the district court 's decision with regard to the issue

5 . Reason : The DESE and the district court violated their duty set out by IDEA . The DESE has been mandated to directly provide for educational services to Katherine because she is a handicapped residing in the school district . Also , the DESE is responsible when the district school cannot provide the appropriate public education of Katherine . Moreover costs shall be paid by the DESE even if the provider of the education is a private school because it was found out by the panel that Perkins can meet her educational needs

6 . Significance : This serves as an example for those schools and governmental institutions who throw responsibility at each other to the prejudice of the student who needed a prompt action from them

References

Bulk .Resource .Org...