Key Judicial Decisions

.docx

School

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1013

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by DrPelican1578

1. First U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of PL94-142.  Appropriate education addressed in the court decision.  Students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn.  Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley , 1982, Appropriate education 2. African American students could not be placed in classes for children with mild intellectual disability solely on the basis of intellectual assessments found to be culturally and racially biased. Schools directed to develop nonbiased assessment process.  Larry P. v. Riles , 1972, 1979, Class placement 3. Supreme court decision – IEP must provide more than minimal education benefit. Every student must be given the opportunity to meet challenging objectives.  Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District , 2017, Educational benefit 4. Group administered IQ tests cannot be used to place children in programs for individuals with intellectual disability. Students must be tested in their primary language as well as English. Diana v. State Board of Education , 1970, Class placement 5. S. Supreme Court clarified the concept related services. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999, Related services 6. Established the two-prong test for determining compliance with the least restrictive environment mandate for students with severe disabilities. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education , 1989, Class placement 7. State must guarantee a free public education to all children with intellectual disability ages 6-21. Established the right of parents to participate in educational decisions affecting their children.  Initiation of “child find.” Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 1972, Right to education 8. Supreme Court found that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private school education services when a public school fails to provide FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate. Forest Grove School District v. T.A. , 2009, Tuition reimbursement
9. Special educators can provide services to students in parochial schools. Agostini v. Felton , 1997, Provision of services 10. Court stipulated that only those services that allow a student to benefit from special education qualify as related services. Tatro v. State of Texas , 1980, Related services 11. Lack of fiscal resources is not a valid reason for failing to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. Due process safeguards established to protect the rights of the child.  Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia , 1972, Right to education 12. Placement in a general education must be offered to students with disabilities prior to considering a more segregated placement. Judicial preference for educational integration established. Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District , 1992, Least restrictive environment 13. Parents are not entitled to the reimbursement for the cost of experts. Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphey , 2006, Recovery of fees 14. Required schools to offer special language programs to English learners in order to confer equal educational opportunity. Lau v. Nichols , 1974, Equal educational opportunity 15. Parents were allowed to file suit as the suit was determined to be a disability discrimination issue, services were not in question. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools , 2017, IDEA exhaustion doctrine 16. Some children are denied an appropriate education if not provided with a year-round education. Armstrong v. Kline , 1979, Extended school year
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help