Special Education Law

  • Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

    Amy Rowley a Deaf child attended school with certain provisions in Kindergarten. Her parents were not happy with these provisions once she entered First Grade, and wanted an actual interpreter for her. The school refused to pay for these services, stating the current services was adequate.
    The ruling was eventually against the parents in the Supreme Court, however, due to this case, the groundwork was laid for what was considered Free and Appropriate Education.
  • Irving Independent School District. V. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).

    Amber Tatro, a student with cerebral palsy, had need of a catheter which was to be inserted every 3-4 hours to her bladder. The school cited that is was considered medical services and not related services to education.
    The court ruled that because a Physician was not needed to perform the catheterization and the Nurse could attend to it, the service would be offered. This case helped define the related services offering a medical exception to support services needed for education.
  • Honig. V. Doe. 484 U.S. 305 (1988)

    Removed the right of a school to suspend a child on an IEP for more than 10 days. The school violated the IDEA act by suspending a student for behavior directly related to his disability.
    This ruling laid the framework to protect children with disabilities from being suspended for acts directly related to their disability. The case also re-affirmed the “stay put” ruling requiring students to be able to stay in their current services until the end of any review.
  • Special Education Advisor

  • Ruling Summary

    The rulings in the three cases I selected supported the students in various ways. The first case started the process for helping students, even though it seemed to fail the student. The school still met its standard of services for that student. The second ruling, the definition for services included medical services not needing a physician. The final ruling gives a definition of what the school is and is not allowed to do in reference to suspensions related to a disability.