History Analysis of Case Laws in Inclusion and Placement Decisions for Students with Special Needs
By glorines26
-
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
provided fuel for the special education movement. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania (1972)
the first case that addressed the issue regarding the right of a student with a disability to be educated in an environment where placement decisions are made with the overriding principal that a student should be educated in a setting as close to the regular education classroom as possible. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
The decision indicated that no child with a disability should be educated in an environment not within the regular public school unless they were granted due process proceedings,
prior to removal, to establish appropriateness of such placement. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975)
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act which was later assumed into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 and subsequent amendments
in 1997. These statutes have laid the framework for the inclusion debate, as well as all issues related to the education of students with disabilities. -
Gladys J. v. Pearland Independence School District (1981)
The court further ruled for a more restrictive placement at parental request. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)
In a battle with the school system, parents of a student with a hearing impairment fought for services above and beyond what the school system felt were appropriate. This decision becomes important to the inclusion movement and placement considerations in what has become a system where parents and schools are often at odds regarding what is the appropriate level of support that schools are required to provide under the free and appropriate public education mandate. -
Roncker v. Walter (1983)
Parents have also brought various cases in which they have requested just the opposite in that they advocate for an inclusive placement. After debate regarding placement for a nine-year old boy in the case, the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of inclusion despite testimony that the boy was receiving little to no educational benefit from the general education classroom. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989)
The parent of a six year old with Down Syndrome argued for inclusion while the school argued that the student was not
benefiting academically from such a placement. The court indicated that the social benefits of inclusion may outweigh the academic benefits. The court concluded that the student’s inclusion in non-academic settings was enough for him to experience the social benefits of inclusion. -
Greer v. Rome City School (1991)
the parent also argued for inclusion and won because the
court determined that the school had not provided all supplementary aids and services that could have been used to promote an inclusive placement. -
Oberti v. Board of Education, (1993)
a student needs to be provided any aid or service that will afford them success in an inclusive environment . -
Mather v. Hartford School District (1996)
in which parents sought a residential placement for their child, and in this case the school felt as though the child would benefit
mainly from general education classes with some resource placement. -
Beth V. V. Van Clay (2002)
the 7th Circuit Court ruled that if a child cannot be educated in an inclusive setting then they should be removed. The court relied
solely on the IDEA to make its decision stating that the student’s could not be educated in the general education environment as evidenced by a lack of educational progress and lack of socialization with others while previously in the general education environment.
