1

Case Study: Special Education

Joan E. Hammond

College of Education, Grand Canyon University

EAD-519: Clinical Internship I: Learner-Centered Leadership

Gina Coffaro

November 17, 2021

 2

Case Study: Special Education

Case Analysis 1-3

This case involves a large K-8 school with an established system to handle the

accommodations of their students with legally binding IEPs and 504 plans. The situation changes

when the site testing coordinator position is eliminated. This endangers the system which

included a testing center for students with special education support for this service. The

teachers, students, and parents are concerned because this could affect the success of the students

who had been using the testing center. The issues to be resolved are how to help the students

with 504 plans who received the services from the testing center continue with that

accommodation (as is contained in the students’ learning plans), and how to keep the school

culture positive with the demands being placed upon the staff at the school. The stakeholders

involved are the students, parents, teachers, counselors, administration (site and district),

principal, superintendent, and district special education administrator.

Case Analysis 4-5

Current laws and court rulings related to this case study include the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act of 1990 and Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon (Essex,

2016). Our district board policies include the following: Board Policy 6159: “The Governing

Board desires to provide full educational opportunities to all students with disabilities. Students

with disabilities shall receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and, to the maximum

extent possible, shall be educated in the least restrictive environment with nondisabled students.”

Also Board Policy 6164.6: “The Superintendent or designee shall provide qualified students with

disabilities with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), as defined under Section 504 of the
 3

federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Such students shall receive regular or special education and

related aids and services designed to meet their individual educational needs as adequately as the

needs of students without disabilities are met” (Wilsona School District, 2019).

Case Analysis 6-8

There are several solutions to these issues. One would be to add the duty of testing center

coordinator to the list of those already done by the general education teachers, dividing up the

duty during planning times for these already overextended individuals. I don’t believe that would

be good for the teachers or students and would be detrimental to the school atmosphere. Another

solution would be to reassign the duty to the special education teachers, which is also a problem

to those teachers who are working to meet the needs of their students with IEPs and have limited

caseloads. Since these students are already part of the counselors’ caseload, I believe the best

solution would be to utilize the counselors to become involved in the testing center. This needs

to be resolved and the plan in place before school starts in the fall. First, I would consult with my

district administration to outline my plan to verify it will be supported and satisfies compliance

at the district level. Then, as soon as possible, I would meet with the counselors to identify and

become familiar with the students involved and make sure each counselor’s caseload is

established and fair. Next, I would collaborate with the teachers with students who have the

testing center in their 504 accommodations to organize a schedule to utilize the testing center

under the supervision of the counselors. I would then determine how to use our classified staff

(under the direction of the counselors) to support this schedule (giving them any training needed

during the summer so they will be ready when school begins). Once these items were in place, I

would notify the families and students of our continued support for their school success when

school resumes in the fall.

 4

Case Analysis 9

Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, Standard 1 includes advocating for the

well-being of students and the support of the school’s culture (Reston, 2015). Standard 3 ensures

equity of educational opportunity, while Standards 5 and 6 provide for the care of students and

staff with the goal of student success (Reston, 2015). Students with IEPs and 504 plans are

protected under the IDEA to receive the support they need to be successful. Those services are

stated in their respective plans, which are legally binding and must be enforced by the district.

Otherwise, the district is at risk of being out of compliance, possible lawsuit, and loss of federal

and state funding. Continuing to give students the support of the testing center will help keep the

district in compliance with laws and policies, as well as help those students become more

successful.

Rationale

As the assistant principal who oversees the counseling and special education departments

at this large school, I am ethically obligated to make decisions which are beneficial to the staff

and, more importantly, the students who would be affected by the loss of the testing coordinator.

My plan to utilize the counselors (with the support of the regular education teachers and

classified personnel) would help to continue the services that the students and families have

come to depend on. A change in these services would put the district at risk of liability and

negatively alter the culture of the school. More importantly, it would hinder the progress of the

students who have used these services to make progress toward the goals in their 504 learning

plans. Having the counselors oversee the testing center can help build relationships with these

students, improving their social and emotional well-being as well. Coordinating the schedule

with the regular education teachers helps everyone feel part of the solution without adding more
 5

responsibility to those teachers, or the special education teachers (all of whom are doing

everything they can to meet the school vision and improvement goals). This collaboration also

meets the compliance with the regulations of the IDEA and protects the funding received by the

district. The presence of supplementary services for special education students was part of the

1993 case of Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon. This case found that students who were

helped by these extra services are entitled to have them provided by the school district. This plan

also helps to provide for the success of all students on campus by not taking away any other

services provided by the other teachers. The special education teachers will continue to deliver

the instruction necessary to the students on their caseload. The regular education teachers will

continue to work to meet the varied needs of their students (which may include those with

special needs). The budget will not be affected since no staff need to be hired (though some

instructional assistants may need to be re-assigned to support the testing center). Ultimately, this

plan helps to uphold the integrity and high expectations of the school, while encouraging the

success of each student attending the school.

 6

References

Essex, N. L. (2016). School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational

Leaders. Sixth Edition. Pearson

Grand Canyon University. (2019). Case Study: Special Education.

https://halo.gcu.edu/resource/4d1a603b-736a-412a-9159-598d8c31fb8e?

nestedResourceId=a1a284a9-f035-420a-9c02-ba56be6f93bf

Reston, V.A. (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. National Policy Board for

Educational Administration.

Wilsona School District. (2019). District Policies. https://wilsonasd.net