special education case studies

Significant Special Education Cases

M.a. v. newark public schools.

In 2001, ELC with co-counsel Gibbons Del Deo, filed a class action lawsuit against Newark Public Schools and the New Jersey Department of Education, alleging that Newark and the State failed to identify, locate, refer and evaluate students with disabilities for special education services, failed to provide these students with appropriate special education services, and failed to provide “compensatory education” for the deprived services. The  complaint  also charged the State with failure to monitor school districts and failure to provide appropriate relief in response to special education complaint investigation requests. [Docket No. 01-cv-3389 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 02-1799 (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)] 

Status:  Plaintiffs obtained a  preliminary injunction  on behalf of two of the named plaintiffs, and withstood extensive  motions to dismiss  from both sets of defendants. In a  decision  from the Third Circuit, the Court affirmed both the preliminary injunction and the denial of the motions to dismiss. After a prolonged and unsuccessful attempt to settle the matter, the district court  certified the class in 2009  in response to the motion brought by ELC, Gibbons and newly-added co-counsel, Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice. The parties then conducted additional discovery and again commenced settlement discussions. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was endorsed by the Court in 2012. The  Settlement Agreement  calls for the provision of special education services on a timely basis, “compensatory education” for students who did not receive timely services, implementation of a comprehensive special education database, mandatory staff training, extensive reporting of compliance activities, guidelines for corrective action if warranted and independent monitoring of special education services. Newark has issued two Compliance Reports ( July 2012  and  February 2013 ), and the State has instituted one  Corrective Action Plan . ELC is monitoring NPS and State compliance with the Settlement Agreement and, together with Seton Hall, prepared parent training materials in  English ,  Spanish ,  Portuguese  and  Creole , and is training parents across the district.

A.R. v. Freehold Regional High School Board of Education

ELC, with the support of several  pro bono  attorneys, filed a motion on behalf of a group of disability advocacy organizations to appear as  amici curiae  in this case regarding who should bear the burden of proof in a due process hearing when a school district seeks to change a child’s special education Individualized Education Program (IEP). The  amicus  brief  argued that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case of  Schaffer v. Weast , the burden is on the district when it seeks to change the IEP, even where the parent files the hearing request to challenge the school district’s action. The brief additionally explained why placing the burden of proof on parents in such cases would be unfair, violate public policy and undermine the goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (United States District Court for the District of NJ Docket No. 06-cv-03849)

Status:  Shortly after ELC filed the  amicus  brief, the school district settled the case with the student and the matter was dismissed. Subsequently, ELC successfully spearheaded an advocacy effort, with other New Jersey special education practitioners, that resulted in the passage of legislation imposing the burden of proof at special education hearings on school districts in all cases.

A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools

ELC filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the failure of a school district, the state education department, and individual employees to identify and remediate A.W.’s dyslexia. The case reached the Third Circuit twice, with the Court holding in the  first decision  (2003), that the state defendants had waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal financial assistance and could therefore be sued under IDEA and Section 504 and, in the  second decision  (2007), that individual state defendants could not be held liable under Section 1983. A.W.’s claims against his school district and NJDOE were successfully resolved through settlement. [341 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2003), 486 F. 3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007)]

Baer v. Klagholz

In 2001, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on eight challenges to the State’s special education regulations brought by the Education Law Center and co-counsel. The Appellate Division ruling included the mandate that school districts provide parents with evaluation reports prior to eligibility determination meetings, that all students with disabilities receive assessments to determine appropriate post-secondary outcomes, that the pool of community rehabilitation programs for older students include those programs that serve students with the most severe disabilities, and that the scope of IDEA’s disciplinary rights and protections be broadened to comply with federal law. [Docket No. A-7451-97T3 (Superior Court of NJ, Appellate Division)] 

Status:  Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees.

Disability Rights New Jersey v. New Jersey Department of Education

In 2007, ELC, together with  pro bono  co-counsel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the New Jersey Department of Education’s failure to educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [Docket No. 07-cv-02978 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 08-8059 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)] 

Status:  In February 2014, the parties entered into a historic  Settlement Agreement  designed to improve New Jersey’s implementation of IDEA’s mandate that students with disabilities receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The Agreement’s requirements include: a needs assessment to be completed in the 75+ school districts with the worst track record in inclusion, heightened oversight of districts that segregate a disproportional number of students of color with disabilities, extensive training and technical assistance, specially designated state and local inclusion facilitators, parental input regarding district failures, and oversight by a stakeholder committee comprised of disability advocates.

P.N. v. Clementon Board of Education

ELC filed an  amicus  brief  in this case in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on its behalf and on behalf of numerous disability and education advocacy organizations. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing that “prevailing party” attorney’s fees are available to students with disabilities who resolve their educational disputes with districts via a stipulated settlement agreement entered into by an administrative law judge. Citing to ELC’s  amicus  brief, which detailed the important role the attorney’s fee provision plays for poor parents, the Third Circuit noted that it was “particularly troubl[ed]” by the District Court’s holding that reimbursement of a $425 psychologist fee was “de minimis” and did not support a prevailing party finding. ELC then represented the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court, where it successfully urged the Court to deny the Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari [Docket No. 04-4705 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) Docket No. 06-7 (US Supreme Court) Docket No. 02-1351 (District Court for the District of NJ)]. 

Status:  Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees before the District Court.

SPAN v. Hendricks

ELC represented SPAN in challenging the State’s failure to complete an  independent study  of the census-based funding methodology for special education by June 2010, as required by the School Funding Reform Act. While the litigation was pending, the State released its independent study of the special education census funding method in the State school aid formula. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-000852-10)

• Journal Home
• Digital Commons@Georgia Southern

Home > Journals > JCLEL

The Journal of Case Learning and Exceptional Learners (JCLEL) is an open-access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal that publishes special education case studies for students with moderate to extensive living and learning needs. Case studies are accepted for publication as either observation-based descriptions of individual experiences or as intervention-based descriptions of IEP team decisions, interventions, or associated outcomes. Accepted manuscripts may be submitted as a companion to another published intervention or as a stand-alone piece and may include multimedia components.

This journal is designed to provide high-quality case studies with consistent and thorough descriptions of real learning experiences. For researchers, this journal is an opportunity for professionals in the field of special education and individuals with disabilities to collaborate in anonymous information sharing with a national reach. Published articles may be freely applied to teaching and learning for teacher education, professional development, and for research explorations.

We welcome new reviewers, so please reach out to the Editorial Board for more information on how you can serve.

See About This Journal for more information.

Current Issue: Volume 1, Issue 1 (2023)

Editor's note.

The Journey Behind and the Road Ahead Kathryn L. Haughney, Jeongae Kang, and Aftynne E. Cheek

Editor's Guides

How and Why to Write for the Journal of Case Learning and Exceptional Learners Aftynne E. Cheek

How to Review for the Journal of Case Learning and Exceptional Learners Jeongae Kang, Kathryn L. Haughney, and Victoria VanUitert

Observation Case Study

Tempe Wilson: An Observation-based Case Study Kathryn L. Haughney and Shawnee Wakeman

Intervention Case Study

Teaching Employment Skills to Carla within Inclusive Postsecondary Education Kelly R. Kelley, Kelly A. Clark, and Larry Fisher

• About This Journal
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Publication Ethics Statement
• Call for Committee Members
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Search Digital Commons

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2993-2564

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Join the Movement

Case studies, empowering minds: integrating stem into individualized education programs for special education students.

In this case study, we highlight the importance of incorporating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) into special education classrooms and explore successful implementation strategies.  

Making STEM a reality for all learners

All students deserve access to high-quality STEM education. That’s the message of Dr. Leena Bakshi McLean, 2022 EALA New Champion runner-up and executive director of STEM4Real. The organization focuses on providing access and equity for students with limited STEM exposure, including special education students.

To make STEM in special education classrooms and Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) a reality for all students, Dr. Bakshi and her team needed first to see what kind of conversations were happening in classrooms around STEM. Through these conversations, they discovered several areas of need and identified specific strategies to fill these gaps. Thus, the Special Education Toolkit was born.

What is the Special Education Toolkit?

The Special Education Toolkit is a multifaceted resource to support teachers in meeting diverse student needs. It includes labs and lessons with various accommodations, such as shortened lab directions with pictures, bite-sized information, and lessons segmented into shorter tasks. These accommodations allow students to spend less time trying to decode the readings and more time understanding the science and creating meaningful learning experiences.

The toolkit also includes language suggestions for IEPs related to STEM. “[We have found in our research that] A lot of students in Special Education classrooms did not have access to STEM,” Dr. Bakshi explains. “What if we could talk to parents and teachers about adding STEM language into IEPs?”

STEM4Real in action

STEM4Real has established a fruitful collaboration with the classrooms at Golden Gate Community School facilitated through the Contra Costa County Office of Education. With a dedicated focus on enhancing STEM education, STEM4Real has played a pivotal role in implementing STEMScopes, a comprehensive curriculum designed to foster inquiry-based learning.

The organization has gone above and beyond by providing tailored support to teachers, ensuring that the content aligns seamlessly with the unique cultural backgrounds of the students at Golden Gate Community School. Through workshops and ongoing assistance, STEM4Real has empowered educators to create content that is not only academically rigorous but also culturally responsive, fostering a learning environment that resonates with the students’ diverse experiences. This collaborative effort reflects a commitment to making STEM education inclusive and relevant, ultimately enriching the educational experience for Golden Gate Community School students.

The STEM4Real framework

The STEM4Real framework represents a holistic and effective pedagogical methodology grounded in the principles of Connect, Create, and Cultivate . This framework empowers teachers to establish meaningful connections with students, understand their individual needs and learning styles, and foster a deeper engagement with STEM education.

Connect – Building connections:

The Connect phase is at the heart of the framework. Teachers initiate a personalized connection with students by understanding their interests, backgrounds, and learning preferences. This understanding is the foundation for tailoring lessons to resonate deeply with each student.

Create – Immersive learning:

The Create component encourages the development of 3-dimensional and 5E lessons , leveraging phenomenon-based learning to engage students in a hands-on and immersive educational experience. This dynamic teaching strategy enhances conceptual understanding and promotes critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Cultivate – Inclusivity and anti biases:

The Cultivate phase emphasizes an ongoing commitment to fostering an inclusive and antibias culture within the learning environment. Lessons are crafted to address diversity, equity, and inclusion by incorporating content reflecting students’ cultural backgrounds and providing opportunities for collaborative, inclusive learning experiences. This phase extends throughout the academic year, emphasizing the continuous effort to create an environment that supports all students, including those with disabilities, from community schools.

Engagement through real-world context:

Lessons within the STEM4Real framework are designed to actively engage students by connecting theoretical concepts to real-world experiences. For instance, students learning about food deserts might conduct research and gather data on the geographical and socio-economic factors that contribute to food deserts in their community and analyze their impact on residents.

To connect this to photosynthesis, the lesson might delve into understanding the role of plants in addressing food deserts, emphasizing how photosynthesis is a crucial process for plant growth and food production. Hands-on activities, such as growing plants or designing solutions to address food deserts, would further engage students in applying scientific principles to real-world challenges.

Integrating STEMScopes and culturally responsive teaching

STEM4Real’s emphasis on connecting with students and cultivating an anti bias culture  enhances student engagement and promotes culturally responsive teaching . Combining STEM4Real’s pedagogical framework and existing curricula, such as STEMScopes, ensures that the curriculum content is presented in a way that is inclusive and respectful of all students.

Incorporating STEM language into IEPs

Teachers using STEM4Real’s Connect phase report a deeper understanding of their students’ backgrounds, interests, and learning styles. This enhanced connection fosters a more personalized approach to teaching, allowing educators to tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of their students.

Reflecting on her experience with STEM4Real, one educator highlighted the effectiveness of engaging “hooks” and exploring the “implications to society” in lesson planning. These tactics give teachers more ways to engage students and make learning science fun. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of addressing equity within STEM education,“What does it mean, and how do we implement it so that there are examples for other educators and schools to follow?”.

Accessing resources and partnership opportunities

Educators can access the Special Education Toolkit and resources for free at Stem4Real.org/lesson-planning-tools/. If you decide to use the Special Education Toolkit in your classroom, let us know your favorite way to incorporate it into your lessons by tagging us in a post on X, Instagram, or Facebook with the hashtags #EALA #STEM4RealInMyClassroom.

Currently, STEM4Real has partnered with the following districts: Contra Costa County Office of Education – Golden Gate Community Schools, Fontana Unified School District, Rialto Unified School District, Ravenswood City School District, Hayward Unified School District, Solano County Office of Education, San Mateo County Office of Education, and Halau Ku Mana Public Charter School. If you are interested in learning about how you can bring STEM4Real into your school or district contact: www.stem4real.org/partner [email protected]

Reflections

Big takeaway.

Every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, should be able to see themselves in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Though the STEM workforce has grown 20% between the years 2011 and 2021, only 3% of folks in the STEM workforce are reported to have disabilities ( Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities , 2023). With the high rate of growth of STEM in the workforce, it is more important than ever to ensure we are providing all learners with the right circumstances to access these opportunities.

What I would tell other eduxators/leaders

Educators and leaders must do the internal work to dismantle our biases and ensure that the learning environment is inclusive and respectful of all students. Applying the appropriate accommodations and modifications is crucial to every subject within students’ IEPs; this further advances Bakshi’s idea to add STEM language to students’ IEPs. 

Continue to advocate for your students’ needs within the STEM realm. IEPs should not stop at Math and Language Arts.

What we are still figuring out

There’s still a lot of work to ensure that all students have access to STEM education. How can we make the STEM curriculum universally accessible to all students? What can educators do to ensure they are creating a classroom that is both inclusive and rigorous? You can start by utilizing STEM4Real’s accessible curriculum within your classroom to make STEM more accessible for all learners.

About The Author

Leena Bakshi McLean, ED.D. —  STEM4Real  provides socially just and culturally relevant STEM teaching and standards-based teaching strategies through collaborative professional learning, culturally responsive instructional materials and diverse children’s literature. They focus on shifting teacher pedagogy by grounding their work with a justice centered lens that makes equity paramount in their vision.

Special Education Resource Project

Explicit instruction case study part one.

What is a case study?  Heale and Twycross (2018) defined a case study as “research methodology, typically seen in social and life sciences. There is no one definition of case study research.  However, very simply… ‘a case study can be defined as an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units’.”  The case study we are about to explore for explicit teaching follows a teacher as she is restructuring her lesson plan for a phonics lesson.  We will explore who this teacher is, who her students are, how she adjusts her lesson plans and how she demonstrates this during her instruction.  So…let’s meet the teacher.

(Please note that this case study is not a real life example and the occurrence of names to real people is a coincidence. All materials you will see in this case study are original.)

Mrs. Adams is a resource special education teacher at a mid-sized elementary school.  The school is a Title 1 school and serves a large population of English as a Second Language Learners.  Mrs. Adam’s class is made up of three 1st grade students.  Joey whose diagnosis is AHDH, Jordyn whose diagnosis is specific learning disability (SLD) and Oscar whose diagnosis is specific learning disability and he is an English Language Learner.  Her students meet with her daily for 45 minutes for resource reading.

After attending a professional development at her school last week, Mrs. Adams wants to use the principles of explicit instruction in her lessons.  She starts by choosing a lesson on the digraph -sh.  This is the first time this skill will be introduced to students.  The lesson will examine the digraph -sh both at the beginning and the end of words.

If you would like a copy of the 16 Elements of Explicit Instruction, please click on the link below.  

Explicit Instruction – Chapter One (Archer and Hughes, 2011)

Mrs. Adams identifies the prerequisite skills that her students will need to help them with the digraph        -sh.  She decides to review letter sounds since digraphs are different from individual letter sounds.  Mrs. Adams has already established the term “everyone” for the signal word for verbal responses.  This is how she introduces the lesson:

Mrs. Adams Lesson Introduction:

“Today we are going to be learning about digraphs.  Digraphs are two letters put together to make one sound.  These sounds are different from our other letter sounds because those sounds only make one sound.  Let’s look at the letters “s” and “h.  Digraphs are an important part of being able to decode and read words.”

“We are going to be practicing with the digraph “sh.”  By the end of the lesson, you will be able to find the sound “sh” at the beginning of words.  Let’s start our lesson.”

“What sound does “s” make?  (Presents students with S letter card)

“Everyone – “ssss.”  Very good, “s” says “sss.”

“What sound does “h” make?  (Presents students with H letter card) Everyone – “huh.”  Good job, “h” says “huh.”

“Now let’s look at the letters “s” and “h” put together (presents students with SH letter card).

When these letters are put together, they no longer make the sounds “sss” and “huh.”  When together, “s” and “h” make the sound “sshh.  Watch me, I’m going to say the sound for “sh”…”ssshh.”

“Now it’s your turn.  What sound does “sh” make?  Everyone – “sshhh.”  That’s exactly right.  When “s” and “h” are together, they make the sound “sshh.”

“Let’s do some more practice.”

In the lesson, she focused her instruction on the critical content (Element #1) .  She decided that the digraph “sh” was going to be the focus of the instruction.  Digraphs are a central part to decoding words.

After identifying her critical content, she identified the prerequisite skills that her students would need to learn the digraph “sh” (Element #6) .  Students needed to be able to identify the letters “s” and “h” and to know their sounds.

To start her lesson, Mrs. Adams began her lesson with a clear statement of purpose (Element #5) .  Her students know exactly the skill they will be learning and what he expectations are for the end of the lesson.

During her introduction, she used clear and concise language.  She referred to “sh” a digraph.  This is the terminology used to describe the sounds sh, ch, th, wh, etc.  She also refers the letters as having sounds.  (Element #8)

Mrs. Adams provided opportunities for her students to respond to the letter sounds (Element #11) .

Let’s visit Case Study Part 2 to see how Mrs. Adams continues using the elements of explicit instruction in her lesson.  

Click on the image below to see Case Study Part 2.  

References:

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011).  Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching . New York: Guilford Press.

NASET.org Home Page

Exceptional teachers teaching exceptional children.

• Overview of NASET
• NASET Leadership
• Directors' Message
• Books by the Executive Directors
• Mission Statement
• NASET Apps for iPhone and iPad
• NASET Store
• NASET Sponsors
• Marketing Opportunities
• Contact NASET
• Renew Your Membership
• Membership Benefits
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Membership Categories
• School / District Membership Information
• Gift Membership
• Membership Benefit for Professors Only
• NASET's Privacy Policy
• Forgot Your User Name or Password?
• Contact Membership Department
• Resources for Special Education Teachers
• Advocacy (Board Certification for Advocacy in Special Education) BCASE
• Board Certification in Special Education
• Inclusion - Board Certification in Inclusion in Special Education (BCISE) Program
• Paraprofessional Skills Preparation Program - PSPP
• Professional Development Program (PDP) Free to NASET Members
• Courses - Professional Development Courses (Free With Membership)
• Forms, Tables, Checklists, and Procedures for Special Education Teachers
• Video and Power Point Library
• IEP Development
• Exceptional Students and Disability Information
• Special Education and the Law
• Transition Services
• Literacy - Teaching Literacy in English to K-5 English Learners
• Facebook - Special Education Teacher Group
• NASET Sponsor's Products and Services
• ADHD Series
• Assessment in Special Education Series
• Autism Spectrum Disorders Series
• Back to School - Special Review
• Bullying of Children
• Classroom Management Series
• Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
• Treatment of Disabilities and Disorders for Students Receiving Special Education and Related Services
• Discipline of Students in Special Education Series
• Early Intervention Series
• Genetics in Special Education Series
• How To Series
• Inclusion Series
• IEP Components
• JAASEP - Research Based Journal in Special Education
• Lesser Known Disorders
• NASET NEWS ALERTS
• NASET Q & A Corner
• Parent Teacher Conference Handouts
• The Practical Teacher
• Resolving Disputes with Parents Series
• RTI Roundtable
• Severe Disabilities Series
• Special Educator e-Journal - Latest and Archived Issues
• Week in Review
• Working with Paraprofessionals in Your School
• Author Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts & Articles to NASET
• SCHOOLS of EXCELLENCE
• Exceptional Charter School in Special Education
• Outstanding Special Education Teacher Award
• Board Certification Programs
• Employers - Job Posting Information
• Latest Job Listings
• Professional Development Program (PDP)
• Employers-Post a Job on NASET
• PDP - Professional Development Courses
• Board Certification in Special Education (BCSE)
• Board Certification in IEP Development (BCIEP)
• NASET Continuing Education/Professional Development Courses
• HONOR SOCIETY - Omega Gamma Chi
• Other Resources for Special Education Teaching Positions
• Highly Qualified Teachers
• Special Education Career Advice
• Special Education Career Fact Sheets
• FAQs for Special Education Teachers
• Special Education Teacher Salaries by State
• State Licensure for Special Education Teachers
• IEP Goals and Objectives - Case Study

IEP Case Study

Naset’s iep goals and objectives with common core state standards.

An Example Case

John is a 6 th grade boy who was recently evaluated for special education. His evaluation results indicated deficits in the following areas:

1- John has difficulty in learning how to gather and organize information for a report or an assignment in a clear and coherent manner.

2- John has difficulty planning, revising, and rewriting his assignments.

3- John has difficulty applying division and multiplication facts in order to solve fractions.

4- John has great difficulty understanding and integrating information in areas like science when it comes to charts and diagrams.

5- John has great difficulty and gets confused when determining the meaning from multiple meaning words and phrases.

See how the latest update to NASET's IEP Goals and Objectives with Common Core State Standards application can be used with this case study!

See an impartial review of this app - click here, view or download this case study - click here, see video demonstrations of this app - click here.

Purchase on in the iTunes Store for only $9.99

To purchase and download this unique app, click on the apple image above or copy and paste this link: https://itunes.apple.com/webobjects/mzstore.woa/wa/viewsoftwareid=570070557&mt=8, impartial third party review.

Take a look at this unsolicited reviewer has to say about this app -  http://www.lessonplanet.com/professional-development/courses/ed-tech-iep-goals-and-objectives-with-ccss

• IEP Goals and Objectives with CCSS - Application Videos

©2024 National Association of Special Education Teachers. All rights reserved

Landmark Cases in Special Education Law

Landmark cases in special education law.

In the United States legal system, judicial decisions play an important role in determining what a particular law means. This type of law is known as “Case Law.” Case Law is developed when courts are asked to resolve disputes that are occurring between two or more parties, and the court must interpret what the law means in a given situation. Through this process, the meaning of phrases such as “Least Restrictive Environment” and “Meaningful Educational Benefit” evolve as various courts decide cases and set precedents. A precedent is a rule established in a previous court case that is either binding or persuasive depending on which court issued the decision. Below are some of the cases that are important to special education law and the precedents they have created.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Cases decided by the United States Supreme Court are binding on courts all across the country. As a result, when the Supreme Court interprets a statute or makes a determination in a particular case, all lower courts must use that determination when deciding cases. In some instances, however, the Supreme Court leaves room in a decision that allows individual states to make their own determination – for example, in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that the party requesting a due process hearing under the IDEA has the burden of persuasion to establish his or her claims, but the Court expressly declined to determine whether states may legislate the burden of proof. In 2008, New Jersey enacted a law placing the burden of proof and production in all requests for a due process hearing, whether filed by the parent or the school district, on the school district.

• Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) – In this landmark civil rights decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a separate education for African-American children was not an equal education, concluding that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place and that ‘separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'” This decision provided parents of children with disabilities and disability rights activists the constitutional foundation to press for equal educational opportunities for all children, including those with developmental and other disabilities.
• Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) – This was the first special education case decided by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Court held that an IEP must be reasonably calculated for a child to receive educational benefit, but the school district is not required to provide every service necessary to maximize a child’s potential.
• Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Amber Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) – The Court held that provision of clean intermittent catheterization was a “related service” under the IDEA and not a “medical service,” because the service was necessary for the student to attend school. The services requested did not fall within the medical exclusion because they need not be performed by a physician. The Court noted that “Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children and to make such access meaningful.”
• Burlington Sch. Committee v. Mass. Bd. of Ed., 471 U. S. 359 (1985) – The Court established, for the first time, the right of parents to be reimbursed for their expenditures for private special education. This decision (together with the Court’s decision in Florence v. Carter) generally stands for the proposition that a school district may be required to reimburse parents for tuition and other expenses related to a private school placement when (1) the IEP and placement offered by the school district were inadequate or inappropriate (in other words, where the school district failed to offer FAPE) (2) the parents’ private placement was appropriate for their child’s needs, and (3) the balance of the equities favors reimbursement. The Court also explained that in an IDEA dispute, a court has broad authority to fashion appropriate relief considering equitable factors, which will effectuate the purposes underlying the Act, and that the IDEA provides “procedural safeguards to ensure the full participation of the parents and proper resolution of substantive disagreements.”
• Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) – The Court addressed the IDEA’s “stay put” provision, explaining that in enacting “stay put”, Congress intended “to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students … from school.” The Court also noted that the IEP is the “centerpiece of the [IDEA’s] education delivery system” and explained that “Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness.”
• Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) – The Court discussed the standards pursuant to which a parent may obtain reimbursement for a private educational placement. Importantly, the Court determined that reimbursement does not necessarily require that the private school meet the IDEA’s definition of free appropriate public education; the private school does not necessarily have to meet the state education standards.
• Buckhannon v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001) –  The Court ruled that in order to obtain attorney fees as a “prevailing party,” the party must secure either a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree.
• Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) –  The Court held that, absent a state statute to the contrary, the party seeking relief bears the burden of proof in an administrative due process proceeding.
• Arlington v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) –  The Court held that a provision of the IDEA authorizing “reasonable attorneys’ fees for prevailing parents does not authorize the recovery of fees for expert’s services.
• Jacob Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (2007) – Here, the Court determined that parents may pursue claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on their own behalf, as the rights conferred to parents under the Act exist independently from the rights of their child.

U.S. Court of Appeals Decisions

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are the U.S. Courts of Appeals. A court of appeals hears challenges to District Court decisions from courts located within its circuit. The U.S. District Court of New Jersey sits within the Third Judicial Circuit. Decisions made in the Third Circuit are binding in all New Jersey courts. Decisions made in other Circuit Courts are influential when the same issue has not previously been addressed by the Third Circuit. Below are some of the important special education decisions that have been issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

• Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1990) –  The Third Circuit held that compensatory education is available to respond to situations where a school district flagrantly fails to comply with the requirements of IDEA.
• Oberti v. Board of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993) – Children with disabilities are entitled to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) that is appropriate to meet their needs. In this case, the Court adopted a two part test to determine whether a child has been placed in the least restrictive environment. It must first be determined whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily. In making this determination, courts should consider several factors, including: (i) whether the school district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in a regular classroom; (ii) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits provided in a special education class; and (iii) the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the other students in the class. If placement outside the regular classroom is necessary, then it must be determined whether the child is mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate, i.e., whether efforts have been made to include the child in school programs with non-disabled children whenever possible. Thus, disabled children should be mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate and their removal from the regular education environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
• Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1998) –  The Third Circuit has held that the educational benefit to which each student is entitled must be more than “trivial,” it must be “meaningful.” The Third Circuit inferred that Congress must have envisioned that “significant learning” would occur. The Court recognized the difficulty of measuring this benefit and concluded that the question of whether the benefit is de minimis must be answered in relation to the child’s potential. Thus the standard was set, a FAPE requires “significant learning” and “meaningful benefit.”
• Ridgewood Board of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3rd Cir. 1999) – In this case, the Third Circuit held that “the provision of merely “more than a trivial educational benefit” does not meet the [Polk] standard . . . . Rowley and Polk reject a bright-line rule on the amount of benefit required of an appropriate IEP in favor of an approach requiring a student-by-student analysis that carefully considers the student’s individual abilities.
• T.R. v. Kingwood Township, 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000) – In this case, the Court clarified that the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates the disabled child with non-disabled children, in the same school the child would attend if the child were not disabled. T.R. involved a preschool aged child who was offered placement in an in-district classroom where half the children were disabled and half were typically developing, which the Court held was a “hybrid” program and therefore not the LRE.
• G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, No. 14-1397 (3rd Cir. 2015) – This case clarified how to interpret IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations. The Court held that the IDEA’s statute of limitations creates a “discovery rule” approach, in which the statute begins to run on the date the parents knew or should have known of the FAPE violation, rather than an “occurrence rule” approach, wherein the statute of limitations period would begin to run on the actual date of the violation. Based on this clarification, parents would be required to file a request for due process within two years of the date they knew, or should have known, their child was denied a FAPE. If the parents of a student reasonably do not discover the denial of a FAPE to their child for many years, so long as the parents file within two years of discovering it, the parents have no limit on the number of years for which they can seek relief.

Contact New Jersey Special Education Attorney Lori E. Arons, Esq. Today to Discuss Your Case

The laws related to special education and educational rights in the United States are extremely complicated and lawyers who have been practicing for years may have little or no experience with this area of law. For this reason, it is critical for parents of children with special needs to retain a lawyer who understands the unique issues that arise in this area of law and are familiar with the various state and federal laws, regulations, and court decisions that can have an impact on the way a case will be resolved.

Lori E. Arons, Esq. is a skilled NJ special education lawyer who has been through the IEP process with her own children, and is personally invested in ensuring that kids with special needs get the education to which they are legally entitled. To schedule a consultation with Lori, call our office today or send us an email through our online contact form.

FOR AN EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY, CONTACT LORI ARONS TODAY

• Attorney Profile
• Testimonials
• Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
• Landmark Cases In Special Education Law
• Due Process
• Resources & Faq
• (201) 388-9533

Practicum Experiences in Special Schools: A Case Study

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Monica Wong 4 ,
• Chrissy Monteleone 4 ,
• Miriam Tanti 4 &
• Kelly-Mariee Lorusso 5  

371 Accesses

Initial teacher education programs in New South Wales have included a dedicated special education unit to build the capacity of pre-service teachers to meet the diverse needs of complex learners. Pre-service teachers who have completed these types of units develop a good theoretical understanding of inclusive education, and their professional development can be enhanced through professional experience and practicums in inclusive and special-education settings (e.g., Lancaster and Bain in Int J Disability, Dev Educ 54:245–256, 2007 ); Tindall et al. in Eur Phys Educ Rev 21:206–221, 2015 ; Walton and Rusznyak in Teach Teach Educ 36:112–120, 2013 ). This chapter outlines a pilot project to place pre-service teachers in a School for Specific Purposes. The case study of one pre-service teacher during her 20-day placement and the development of insights about inclusive and special education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Children with Disabilities in Bhutan: Transitioning from Special Educational Needs to Inclusive Education

Inclusive Schools - Inclusive Teachers? How much special needs preparation does a pre-service teacher need to teach successfully in an inclusive school system?

Service Learning in a Suburban Community in Vietnam: Pre-Service EFL Teachers as Agents of Change

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case ctudy methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544–559.

Google Scholar  

Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW. (2014). Classroom Management and Students with Special Needs . Author. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/73536b96-73aa-4592-8425-2d0ad17dd89d/ClassroomManagementStudentsWithSpecialEducationNeedsAccess.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID =

Civitillo, S., Moor, J. M. H., & Vervloed, M. P. J. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education in the Netherlands: An exploratory study. Support for Learning, 31 (2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12119

Article   Google Scholar  

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . D.C. Heath & Co. Publishers.

Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion: International responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 155–170). Taylor & Francis Group.

Gething, L., & Wheeler, B. (1992). The interaction with disabled persons scale: A new Australian instrument to measure attitudes towards people with disabilities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44 (2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049539208260146

Grima-Farrell, C. R., Long, J., Bentley-Williams, R., & Laws, C. (2014). A school system and university approach to reducing the research to practice gap in teacher education: A collaborative special education immersion project. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (5), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.479044874682929

Key Word Sign. (n.d.). About Key Word Sign . http://www.kwsnsw.com/home/about-key-word-sign

Kraska, J., & Boyle, C. (2014). Attitudes of preschool and primary school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (3), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307

Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2007). The design of inclusive education courses and the self-efficacy of preservice teacher education students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54 (2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701330610

Lautenbach, F., & Heyder, A. (2019). Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research, 61 (2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th edn). Pearson.

Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22 (2), 150–159.

New South Wales Department of Education. (2021). Schools for Specific Purposes (SSP) . https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/disability-learning-and-support/programs-and-services/special-schools-ssps

New South Wales Education Standards Authority. (2017 December). NSW Supplementary Documentation: Elaborations in Priority Areas . Author. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/15b74dc4-462b-4fad-9e10-74c8a2124c19/elaboration-in-priority-areas.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID =

New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No. 3—Education. (2017). Education of students with a disability or special needs in New South Wales/Portfolio Committee No. 3 . Sydney, N.S.W.: Portfolio Committe No. 3—Education. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2416/170921%20-%20Final%20report.pdf

Peebles, J. L., & Mendaglio, S. (2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (12), 1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.899635

Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 32 (2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.661704

Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education , 52 , 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.003

Symeonidou, S. (2017). Initial teacher education for inclusion: A review of the literature. Disability & Society, 32 (3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1298992

Tindall, D., MacDonald, W., Carroll, E., & Moody, B. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards children with disabilities: An Irish perspective. European Physical Education Review, 21 (2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x14556861

Walton, E., & Rusznyak, L. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ pedagogical learning during practicum placements in special schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36 , 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.011

Weaven, E., & Hemmings, B. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ views about an inclusive education internship: A qualitative study. Special Education Perspectives, 16 (1), 70–94.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th edn). SAGE Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia

Monica Wong, Chrissy Monteleone & Miriam Tanti

NSW Education, Parramatta, Australia

Kelly-Mariee Lorusso

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Wong .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

Matthew Winslade

School of Education, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Tony Loughland

University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Michelle J. Eady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Wong, M., Monteleone, C., Tanti, M., Lorusso, KM. (2023). Practicum Experiences in Special Schools: A Case Study. In: Winslade, M., Loughland, T., Eady, M.J. (eds) Work-Integrated Learning Case Studies in Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6532-6_20

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6532-6_20

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-6531-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-6532-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research