STEFAN JAYNES VS NNPS
Introduction
The court hearing concerns Stefan Jaynes; a child discovered to have autism at two years old. The pediatric advised his caregivers to seek intervention from their local school district. However, the response encountered resistance from the school district. Moreover, the school district placed Stefan on a preschool program that did not meet the child’s autism. As a result of the typical plan, the child regressed, and thus, his parents resorted to seeking legal advice against the Newport News Public School district.
Summary of the Court case
Stefan Jaynes required urgent occupational therapy. His parents reached out to a unique program, PACES, meant for children with autism. However, Stefan could not enroll in the program. The enrollment required authorization from the local public school system. Stefan’s parents sought the necessary referral from the Newport News Public Schools (NNPS), citing it as a matter of urgency. However, NNPS delayed the assessment process and not until five months later that Stefan was declared eligible to access special education, as well as speech-related services.
Moreover, Stefan enrolled in a program that did not cater to his needs.This further led to the alteration of some of his schooling programs. Stefan’s condition got worse, forcing his parents to withdraw him from the school to give homeschooling by private tutors.
Stefan’s parents thus sued the NNPS for procedural violations and damages caused to their child’s development process. The officer presiding over the case found that the NNPS has not followed the set procedures in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Additionally, the officer pointed out, denying his parents participation in the IEP process.
The Outcome of the court case
The Local Hearing Officer gave an order that the NNPS compensated the petitioners for educational expenses incurred since Stefan joined the school. However, the defendant appealed against the decision to the State Hearing Officer. The Local Hearing Officer’s decision was upheld but with reduced compensation to the plaintiff.
Opinion on the Court Hearing
The plaintiff was right to file for a due process hearing (Yell, D Rogers and L Rogers, 1998). However, the parents did not make an excellent follow up on their child’s progress. Stefan’s parents ought to have sought legal help early enough to help them salvage their child’s condition.
Conclusion
It is vital to follow all measures put in place regarding the education of differently-abled children. The systems should not witness constant delays. The lengthy processes could cause more harm to the progress of the disabled.