Buser V. Corpus Christi Independent School Case Study

There are a number of landmark court cases of special education in the country that have become the basis of how we currently provide services to students with disabilities. Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970) and Larry P. v. Riles (1984) are two of these landmark court cases that highlight nondiscriminatory assessments. Below is the analysis of the two court cases in four major sections: The Legal Cases, Summary, Future Practice, and Comparison and Contrasts.

Daniel RR was a six years old boy with down syndrome. He was enrolled in El Paso Independent School District. In the 1985 to 1986 school year, Daniel had attended a half-day early childhood program for special education students. Going into the next school year, Daniel’s parents asked if he could be placed into a general education pre-kindergarten classroom. Daniel was permitted to have half day in regular classroom and another half of the day in special education classroom. At the beginning, it seemed not to be the best situation for Daniel, teachers and classmates. His ability required him to get many accommodations and individual attention, and the teacher could not modify curriculum to meet Daniel’s needs without changing it completely. The school team decided to place him back to special education only classroom. But he could get lunch at school cafeteria with other students while his mother was there to supervise. He was also permitted to stay with students without disabilities at recess time. Daniel’s parents were unhappy about the school’s decision. They wanted him to spend more time with students in general education classroom. The school states that his attendance in general education

While all children can be referred for evaluation for special education, not all are found to be eligible. The student will be tested in all areas related to the child’s assumed disability by the multidisciplinary educational team. In order to be eligible for special education services, the child’s assume disability has to impact the child’s ability to learn. Parents represent the child’s interests. They need to stay informed and involved in their child’s education. IDEA of 2004 strengthened the role, as well as the responsibility, of parents and ensures that they and their families have opportunities to participate in their child’s education. IDEA also protects the rights of parents by ensuring that they can be members of the IEP teams. Parents can be involved in the evaluations and placements of their children and have a say in what happens.

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

In this mock IEP meeting, we examine John Grohman from Kelsey Elementary School. John is a 2nd grade student who has Asperger’s Syndrome. He is a student who has extreme behavioral problems. John’s parents are extremely concerned about his behavior at home and at school. In this mock IEP, we look at John from his parents, special education teacher, administrator, general education teacher, and evaluator; to get a better picture of what is needed to help John be successful.

The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who should not. Often debated both within the court system, and without, is the subject of whether the child with a severe disability can actually benefit from the services and resources being allocated to that student. Timothy W. V. Rochester School District addresses just that issue referred to as “Zero Reject.”

This article discusses Jane Doe, a Texas high school girl sexually molested by a high school teacher. Jane Doe filed a civil suit against Taylor independent School District. The reasons were, the school board permitted violations of due process and violated her equal protection rights. Jane thoroughly established her constitutional rights and proceeded with her claim. The teacher violated the fourteenth amendment to be free from sexual abuse by a state employed teacher. The court ruled in favor of Doe, stating that there was no action taken in order to prevent the violation of her rights. This case impressed me, it was very interesting. I believe that the teacher violated the student rights and the school failed to properly respond to the claims of molestation. I was also shocked that the school district was not proactive toward Doe needs.

In 2004 the case of Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education was coming to a close after reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. Within this essay, detailed examination of this case, along with issues that developed the case, disagreement points, parties involved, and final outcome will be explored. This case was initiated in 1999 and reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Individuals with Disabilities Act has given parents and caregivers to student’s unparalleled

The court’s found CIC to be a “related service” allowing Amber to have a special education. The Court of Appeals affirmed and accepted the District Court’s conclusion that state law permitted be required schools to hire trained personnel to help with the needs of handicapped children. This entitles an education for those children with special medical needs. “A service that enables a handicapped child to remain at school during the day is an important means of providing the child with the meaningful access to education that Congress envisioned (Eric).”

In the early 1970’s parents of students with disabilities went to federal court when their local school districts did not provide services to meet their children’s educational needs. In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971), a Pennsylvania court ruled that all children, regardless of disability, have a basic right to an education under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972), a federal court ruled that the District of Columbia schools could not exclude children with disabilities from the public schools. Cases like this focused public attention on the issue of educating children with disabilities. The social and political pressure then resulted in landmark federal legislation to address the educational rights of these children.

In 1991 the Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This law was passed to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. It requires that each child with a disability “have access to the program best suited to that child’s special needs which is as close as possible to a normal child’s educational program” (Martin, 1978). The Individualized education program (IEP) was developed to help provide a written record of students’ needs and procedures for each child that receives special education services. The IEP will list all the services to be provided, the student's performance level, academic performance, and

Petitioners’ filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (“Complaint”) on November 25, 2015, which set forth several alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) which Petitioner’s assert resulted in alleged denials of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The District filed Respondent’s Answer to Petitioners’ Request for Special Education Due Process Hearing (“Response”) on December 10, 2015. As an affirmative defense, the District’s Response included an objection to all claims barred by the one-year statute of limitations codified as 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1151(c).

Hernandez, Beth Harry, Lynn Newman and Rene Cameto in an effort to learn more of parental awareness of special education rights and programs, perceptions of parental involvement and satisfaction with the District’s special education process as well as comparing the results to those nation wide. This study was conducted in two waves the first wave was conducted in the spring of 2005 and the second wave in the winter through spring of 2006. The interviews were conducted in eight languages among those Spanish, English, Chinese and Korean. The questions were formed in an aim to find out about parental awareness of special education rights and programs, parents participation in IEP meetings, reasons why parents did not attend meeting. Data was also collected in regards to the type of notification of meetings and for those parents who do not speak English they were also asked about translators. On wave 2 one more question was included to find out about income. A random sample of 2000 was selected for each wave. To promote higher response two letters were sent to parents notifying them about he interview before phone calls were made. Their response rate was about 70% for first wave and 72% for second wave. The survey showed the following results 85% of the parents reported to attend IEP meetings and 75% reported

in this chapter, we examine the basic legal framework of school law in Texas. We begin by discussing the sources of school law and then describe the roles of the state and federal governments in the establishment and operation of the Texas school system. We examine the functioning of the State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, local school districts, private schools, and charter schools. And we discuss the responsibilities of school administrators and the functioning of site-based management. Later sections look at important federal laws affecting the operation of Texas schools and review the long-running controversy over the fi nancing of Texas schools.

Artifact number four will review a scenario in which a seasoned high school principal refuses a disabled student education due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school might not be the best placement for Jonathan. The topics discussed all pertain to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Cedar Rapids v Garret, Board of Education v Holland, and Timothy v Rochester. The facts that will be reviewed in this information will be discussed which could be used to defend Young’s decision, but make sure that Jonathan’s rights are not being stepped on.