Hartmann vs Loudon County Board of Education: Impact on LRE
When it comes to Hartmann vs. Loudon County Board of Education, the plaintiff declared that the offender failed to inform Mark Hartmann, a trainee with autism, with non-handicapped children to the maximum level proper. Mark Hartmann is an eleven-year-old child who has a developmental disorder defined by significant shortages in communication abilities, social interaction and motor control. He was participated in routine class during his pre school years at Butterfield Elementary, Illinois with self-contained classes too.
He was provided with speech and occupational treatment while doing so.
So, when they transferred to Loudon County, Virginia, and his parents sent him to Ashburn Elementary he was positioned at the regular education classroom based from his IEP at Illinois. Mark was offered with all the support including SPED Teacher, Special Aide, Therapist, and so on. However ultimately, Mark manifested episodes of behavioral issues such as screeching, striking, pinching, kicking, biting and removing his clothes.
His IEP team stated that there was no academic development kept in mind for Mark in his stay with the regular classroom for this reason it has been proposed to put him in a specifically structured class at Leesburg Elementary.
The district relied heavily on the reading of Mark’s experience in Illinois and Montgomery County, where he moved. Also, they related to disruptive habits as not a substantial element in identifying the appropriate academic positioning for a handicapped child. However CONCEPT too expresses the relationship in between local school authorities and a reviewing district court such that invitation to the courts is by no ways to substitute their own notions of sound academic policy for those of the school authorities.
IDEA also notes that administrative findings are prima facie correct. IDEA also does no prohibit educators of the right to present professional judgment and although states have been tasked to give specialized instruction and other services, it is not required to furnish every special service necessary for the child. The appropriateness of Mark’s education becomes inappropriate when despite supplementary aides and services; his education is not achieved satisfactorily due to the severity of the disability.
The progress Mark was making at his speech therapy was due to its one on one setting. The Illinois report of his presumed progress was considered flawed. In consideration of Mark’s social skills that were due to interaction with non-disabled peers, this however cannot outweigh his failure to progress in academics in the regular classes. The Supreme Court in favor of the Loudon County Board of Education has therefore reversed the decisions of the district court. I feel that this case impacts on my understanding of the Least Restrictive environment.
Clearly, the case helped me clarify issues of appropriateness of education for disabled students, factors to consider in conducting assessments of the students, the relationship between behavior and academic performance vis a vis educational placement decisions, the significance of IEP as a basis for a student’s current performance, and most specially the smooth relationship between parents and educators in arriving at a common understanding for the benefit of the student.
This new knowledge is beneficial for me in two ways: in properly interpreting IDEA and in improving assessment of students so that proper IEP is made, appropriate educational placement is suggested and modified teaching strategies and methods are implemented.
This case has been important in public education in terms of determining proper relationships between local school authorities and district courts and in the consideration of evidences that are most significant to the case. Also, it created a new sentiment as regards the notion of LRE and FAPE, that mainstreaming favors educational benefit of the student but is not sufficient to attain so.
