Special Education Resource
As an elementary-level general education teacher, you are the person most likely to alert other professionals about a student you suspect may have a disability. For this reason, it is important that you know and understand the laws and policies that govern the process involved with special education.
This 2-part assignment provides you the opportunity to take a deep dive into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as well as the rights of learners and parents, and the responsibilities of teachers. Complete Parts 1 and 2 below.
Part 1: Special Education Resource
Create a 375- to 525-word informational resource that addresses the following topics in relation to special education:
Special education process
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to include the Child Find mandate
Disability categories for special education eligibility
Part 2: Rights, Responsibilities, and Standards of Practice Presentation
Research the following topics in relation to special education:
Federal and state involvement
Legal structures that govern programs
Laws that address learners’ and parental rights
Teacher expectations and responsibilities
Professional standards of practice
Create a 6- to 8-slide presentation using a presentation tool in the Technology Resource Library.
Note: The tool must be approved by your instructor.
Address the following in your presentation:
Laws or policies related to learners’ and parental rights in special education
Teacher expectations and responsibilities for working with students with disabilities
Professional best practice strategies for the following:
Advocating to meet the needs of all learners
Promoting learners to meet full potential
Demonstrating respect for learners as individuals with differing personal and family backgrounds and various skills, abilities, and interests
Demonstrating collaboration with learners, families, and colleagues
ver, we can likewise contend that the conflict can never be the final retreat, considering there is generally a method for attempting to keep away from it, similar to authorizations or settlement, showing Vittola's hypothesis is defective. Fourthly, Vittola inquiries upon whose authority can request a statement of war, where he infers any republic can do battle, yet more critically, "the ruler" where he has "the normal request" as per Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is additionally upheld by Aristotle's Politics ((1996), Page 28): 'a lord is the normal prevalent of his subjects.' However, he really does later underscore to place all confidence in the sovereign is off-base and has outcomes; a careful assessment of the reason for war is expected alongside the eagerness to arrange rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is upheld by the activities of Hitler are considered treacherously. Additionally, in this day and age, wars are not generally battled exclusively by states yet in addition non-state entertainers like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola's regulating guarantee on power is obsolete. This is additionally upheld by Frowe's case that the pioneer needs to address individuals' inclinations, under authentic power, which joins on to the fourth condition: Public statement of war. Concurred with many, there should be an authority declaration on a statement of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). At last, the most dubious condition is that wars ought to have a sensible likelihood of coming out on top. As Vittola repeated, the point of war is to lay out harmony and security; getting the public great. In the event that this can't be accomplished, Frowe contends it would be smarter to give up to the foe. This can be legitimate in light of the fact that the expenses of war would have been greater (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Subsequently, jus promotion bellum contains a few circumstances however in particular: worthy motivation and proportionality. This gives individuals an aide regardless of whether entering a war is legal. Notwithstanding, this is just a single piece of the hypothesis of the simply war. In any case, it very well may be seen over that jus promotion bellum can be bantered all through, showing that there is no conclusive hypothesis of a simply battle, as it is normatively guessed.
Jus in bello
The subsequent area starts unraveling jus in bello or what activities could we at any point characterize as passable in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). To start with, it is never to kill blameless individuals in wars, upheld by Vittola's most memorable recommendation deliberately. This is broadly acknowledged as 'all individuals have a right not to be killed' and assuming a fighter does, they have disregarded that right and lost their right. This is additionally upheld by "non-warrior resistance" (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which prompts the subject of soldier capability referenced later in the exposition. This is confirmed by the besieging of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, finishing the Second World War, where millions we