-
Brown vs. Board of Ed.
*prohibited the segregation of schools based on race
*entitled all students to a free public education
*eventually the extension of this verdict was segregation based on child's unalterable characteristics was unconstitutional (Yell, P 39). -
Mills vs. Board of Ed.
*students were being excluded with due process and the court on ruled procedures for due process
1. the right to a hearing with representation
2. the right to appeal
3. access to records
4. written notice at all stages of the process *students with disabilities who were being totally excluded from school was also ruled unconstitutional Yell. (P. 40). -
PA Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs Commonwealth of PA
*referred to equal protection clause making children with mental retardation entitled to a free public education
4 critical points
1. all children with mental retardation can benefit from an appropriate public education
2. education can not be only defined as academic (making life skills acceptable)
3. could not deny children with mental retardation to free public education
4. younger children could benefit from early intervention (before school age)
(Yell. P40). -
Larry P. vs. Riles
*dealt with black students being placed in E.M.R. classes in California because of culturally biased IQ tests
*ruled that black students could not be placed in E.M.R. classes based on IQ tests, students previously placed there would be reevaluated and correct the plan in 3 years for evaluation https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/495/926/2007878/ -
Armstrong vs. Kline
*examined the importance of extended school year for students with disabilities
*ruled in favor of students with disabilities being provided with an extended school year to help the students from regressing over the extended break during the school year
*extended school year provides a free education program to students with disabilities https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/476/583/1378802/ -
Hendrick Hudson School District vs. Rowley
*the courts deemed that the student was receiving some educational benefit and therefore the student was not entitled to have a sign language interpreter in the classroom supplied by the district
*the ruling was important because the court had to define what "some educational benefit" meant http://usedulaw.com/185-board-of-education-of-the-hendrick-hudson-central-school-district-v-rowley.html -
Irving Independent Sch Dist vs. Tatro
*major litigation on defining between "school health services" and "medical services (physician required)"
*wanted to the school to provide "related services" so the student could receive the benefits of public education
*courts ruled that since a physician was not needed, the school district needed to provide the "related services" http://usedulaw.com/350-irving-independent-school-district-v-tatro.html -
Honig vs. Doe
*court ruling on the "stay put" provision in that a student with a disability are to stay in their current placement unless harm was likely to happen to themselves or others *schools could use a 10 day suspension to gain time to get the courts involved in a potentially dangerous situation http://usedulaw.com/336-honig-v-doe.html -
Danny R. R vs. State Board of Ed of Borough of Clementon Sch Dist
*rendered a decision on a student with disabilities if he was in a least restrictive environment
*came up with 2 criteria
1. Can the student receive a satisfactory education in regular classroom?
2. Has the state taken appropriate steps to accommodate the student in the regular classroom? https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/1036/382507/ -
Oberti vs. Board of Ed
*court case defining the option of mainstreaming a student with disabilities along side students without disabilities to the "maximum extent appropriate"
*ruled that students with disabilities should be integrated in the mainstream classroom, even though it may take a large effort on the part of the school, to have the student be successful https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/801/1392/1945004/ -
Board of Ed in Sacramento Ca vs. Holland
*benefits of putting the student in the regular education classroom based on three criteria (LRE)
1. beneficial to the student academically to stay in regular education
2. her non-academic benefits were social, communication and self-confidence from being in regular ed
3. she was not a disruption or taking away learning time from other students she was allowed to stay in regular ed classroom https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/014/14.F3d.1398.92-15608.html -
Cedar Rapids Community Sch Dist vs. Garrett F
- decision of medical services provided by the school *since services required in the school did not require a physician, the school was required to supply nursing service so the student has a one on one nurse during the school day
- school was concerned about continuous care vs intermittent care costs but court rendered still needed to be supplied and paid for by district
-
Gaskin vs Commonwealth of Pa
*students had been placed in regular education without support and therefore not receiving FAPE
*ruled regulations to make sure schools are complying with federal laws in regards to LRE
*monitoring of the programs in general education classes
*assistance will be provided by the district with including aids and services needed by the student https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=13239
