-
Period: to
Mills v. Board of Education of Columbia
In this case children were being denied an education. The school boards argument was that they did not have proper funding. They argued it was not in their budget to provide all programs necessary to educate children with a special need. The court ruled that funding could not be portioned more toward typical education. They ordered them to distribute funding so that every child could be given a public education. (usedulaw). -
Period: to
Mills v. Board of Education
-
Period: to
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
The Board of Education decided without parent consent and with their expressed disagreement, changed Rowley's IEP and taking away her interpreter.
The court ruled that the school was not providing her with a "Free appropriate education" under EHA, and therefore not allowing her to reach her full potential.
This ruling was important for children with disabilities because it was the first time a court had interpreted the EHA. (wrightslaw). -
Period: to
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central District v. Rowley
-
Period: to
Honig v. Doe
The San Francisco Unified School District recommended Doe's expulsion after suspending him indefinitely on the grounds that his actions, though caused by his disability, were dangerous and disruptive. The first court ruling agreed with Doe that the school had violated the "stay put" provision which allowed the child to stay in his placement pending an IEP review with the parents. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling under the IDEA and refused to create an exception clause. -
Period: to
Honig v. Doe
This ruling has supported the needs of children with disabilities by not allowing students with disabilities to be excluded from school and education. http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.honig.doe.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3DbiSqaBvY