-
Introduction
According to the U.S. Department of Education prior to 1975 access to an appropriate education was denied for most students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). U.S. Department of Education. (2010, November 22). Celebrating 35 Years of IDEA [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUn6luZQaXE -
Introduction
The next 3 cases I have selected are landmark cases that have paved the way for special education services as we know them today. These cases are specific to children getting services in a timely manner, specialized care when needed, and services provided regardless of whether they attend a public school or a parochial school. U.S. Department of Education. (2010, November 22). Celebrating 35 Years of IDEA [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUn6luZQaXE -
1981 Luke S. and Hans S. V. Nixe et al. (Louisiana).
This class action suit was brought against the state of Louisiana on behalf of children with suspected disabilities. The mandated time for an assessment to be done after a parental consent is sixty days and thousands of children were not being served in a timely manner. The state argued that resources were limited and not meeting the demands of the referrals. -
1981 Luke S. and Hans S. V. Nixe et al. (Louisiana).
The ruling for this historical case has set precedence for other states to stay in compliance. Each state must reach out their own Department of Education to find allocated funds and justify why the demands are not being met. Fagan, T., & Warden, P. G. (1996). Historical Encyclopedia of School Psychology. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. -
1981 Luke S. and Hans S. V. Nixe et al. (Louisiana).
The State of Louisiana Department of Education allocated more funding for the resolution of this case, which resulted in 200 new positions (Fagan & Warden, 1996). In addition a minimum level of compliance was mandated in order to serve exceptional students and the referral process. The state was able to comply and serve 97% of those affected by December 1982. -
1993 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
Parents of a deaf child sued the school district after their child transferred from a public school to a catholic school and they refused to continue services of a sign language interpreter. The school used the Establishment Clause as a defense, in which Congress is prohibited from preferring one religion over another. -
1993 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
The Supreme Court ruled that the school district is responsible for providing a sign language interpreter. However, it would be up to the lower courts to determine if the family was entitled to reimbursement, by this time the child had graduated school. -
1993 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
This case paved the way for other children with disabilities that may desire to attend other schools. Public school is not a mandated option, and if the student is entitled to services those services follows the child, not the school. This could be the case for interpreters, attendants, medical assistances, and so forth.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-94.ZO.html -
1999, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the case and noted that both parties disagreed over the training or licensure required for supervision of such student. The ALJ went on to explain that “applicable federal regulations distinguish between “school health services,” which are provided by a “qualified school nurse or other qualified person” and “medical services” which are provided by a licensed physician.” (Wrights Law, 2007). -
1999, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Garret required physical care from a licensed practical nurse during school hours; however in his early years his family found the means to provide those services with their insurance, a settlement, and other resources. However in 1993 his mother requested the school district to accept financial responsibility and they denied request stating that they were not obligated to provide one-on-one ‘nursing’ services. -
1999, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
This case clears up any questions in regards to services needed for students that require specialized health care. Appropriate training and licensure are critical for the best interest of the student.
Wrights Law, 2007. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm
