13. End of Chapter Questions

Discussion Questions

1. What actions, if any, were concerning on the part of the school team?
2. In what ways did the school and Arwynn’s family have positive collaboration experiences?
3. Has Arwynn consistently been placed in the Least Restrictive Environment since she was found eligible for special education? Why or why not?
4. Do you believe that Arwynn is receiving FAPE through her placement at Spring Brook Elementary? Which components of FAPE are or are not evident? What evidence supports your claim?
5. What, if anything, should the IEP team add to the IEP to address Mr. Colatta’s concerns and ensure FAPE?
6. Under what circumstances might a sensory room be required for the delivery of FAPE?

Family and Guardian Communication

1. Participate in a mini meeting simulation with one classmate taking on the role of Mr. Colatta and others taking on the roles of Mr. Johnson and the Spring Brook principal. How can the team ensure that Mr. Colatta feels heard? How can Mr. Johnson and the Spring Book principal show that they are working to address Arwynn’s needs in the absence of a sensory room.
2. Write a Prior Written Notice documenting the discussion at the IEP meeting. You can find a template for Prior Written Notice on page 122 of the Virginia Department of Education’s (2021) Supplemental Guidance for Evaluation and Eligibility document found at https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/902/638151811227000000

Collaboration

1. Work with peers to describe the legal requirements for Least Restrictive Environment and Free Appropriate Public Education in jargon-free language.
2. Explore the supports that can be offered by school-based occupational therapists to address sensory needs. Resources from the Virginia Department of Education can be found at https://www.doe.virginia.gov/programs-services/special-education/iep-instruction/occupational-therapy-physical-therapy-services

Instructor Notes

1. Continue the jigsaw-style discussions around Part 2 of Arwynn’s case. Have students read assigned sections of the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children in Virginia or Yell & Bateman (2020) article. Assign each group to be the “content experts” on their section during class discussion of case study questions.
   • Section 100 Free Appropriate Public Education
   • Section 110 Individualized Education Program
   • Section 130 Least Restrictive Environment
   • Defining Educational Benefit (Yell & Bateman, 2020) pgs. 288 – 290 beginning with “The Implications of Endrew F”
2. As a course project, students may complete a Case Study Analysis & Recommendations paper. The purpose of the project is to have students connect events in both parts of the Arwynn case to legal and procedural requirements found in the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia found here  https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter81/ .

Elements of the Case Study Analysis & Recommendations project may include:

Part A

• Analysis of Case Study – Provide a brief (i.e., 1 paragraph) overview of what happened in the case.
• Table – Include ten to twelve “events” with notes from class discussions and readings. The table will guide Part B.

Part B

• Summary of Procedural & Substantive strengths and challenges evident in the case. Identify and discuss 2 – 3 strengths and 2 – 3 challenges in depth. What happened? What regulatory procedures were followed or not followed? What are the implications for Arwynn? What are the implications for the division? Cite the regulations and other readings to support your position.
• Recommendations – Make 2 – 3 suggestions related to the current case and for future practice. The recommendations could be procedural, climate-based, instructional, etc.