2045.3.3 : Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The graduate explains how special education processes adhere to federal laws to enable students with disabilities to receive appropriate services and supports to succeed academically in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
Parents will often contact the school principal when they have concerns about a possible violation of their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). The principal is ultimately responsible for ensuring that teachers and other school staff members properly adhere to the requirements within a student’s IEP.
In this task, you will act as a school principal to investigate a parent complaint regarding an alleged violation of a student’s IEP.
Acting as the principal of George Mason High School it is your responsibility to investigate a parent complaint regarding an alleged IEP violation that occurred during the advanced algebra end-of-semester exam. You will use the information provided in the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario” and “AEM1 Task 2 Parent Complaint Letter” to help determine an appropriate response to this situation.
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of a submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
A. Explain how the advanced algebra teacher’s actions legally violated this student’s IEP, including references to applicable law.
B. Write a detailed memorandum to your district superintendent regarding the IEP violation by doing the following:
1. Provide a brief synopsis of the incident.
2. Explain your investigation into the incident and your findings.
3. Explain how you addressed the incident with each of the following stakeholders:
• Mr. Williams, the advanced algebra teacher
• Sara Thomas, the student
• Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, Sara’s parents
C. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
|
NOT EVIDENT The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics. |
COMPETENT The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics. |
|
NOT EVIDENT An explanation of how the teacher’s actions violated the student’s IEP is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The explanation contains 1 or more inaccuracies, does not address the legal violation of the student’s IEP, or does not reference applicable law. |
COMPETENT The explanation accurately addresses both the legal violation of the student’s IEP and references applicable law. |
|
NOT EVIDENT A brief synopsis of the incident is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The synopsis contains 1 or more inaccuracies or is not written from an administrative perspective. |
COMPETENT The synopsis is accurate and is written from an administrative perspective. |
|
NOT EVIDENT An explanation of the investigation and findings is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The investigation explained is implausible or would not result in an appropriate or thorough inquiry into the incident. Or the findings are not logically supported by relevant information from the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario.” |
COMPETENT The investigation explained is plausible and would result in an appropriate and thorough inquiry into the incident. The findings are logically supported by relevant information from the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario.” |
|
NOT EVIDENT An explanation of how the incident was addressed with stakeholders is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The explanation does not adhere to Sara’s IEP or special education law, or does not address how the incident was addressed with each given stakeholder. |
COMPETENT The explanation adheres to Sara’s IEP and special education law and addresses how the incident was addressed with each given stakeholder. |
|
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate. |
COMPETENT The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available. |
|
NOT EVIDENT Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective. |
COMPETENT Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding. |