Deal v. Hamilton County Dept. of Education

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.

This week’s readings discussed consequences for special education students. It was very interesting to see the different court case rulings for each case. Teachers, administrators and parents need to make sure they have everything accurate when taking a case like many of these to court. In this paper I will discuss the five key points in the articles and readings stood out to me the most, how and if my beliefs changed or were altered, and how I might apply the content to the classroom and instruction.

Federal court case, David DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants, involves the maltreatment of a disabled child in the state of Ohio. Participants of this case include plaintiffs’, David and Mary Doe (parents of disabled child), John Doe (disabled child) and defendant Big Walnut School District Board of Education (school board). John Doe has been diagnosed with Cognitive disability as a result he is required to have an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"). Due to ongoing “below average general intellectual functioning, self-direction, and communication deficits” listed within his IEP from May 24, 2007, John was placed in a Resource Room at Big Walnut Middle School to assist in the advancement of his education. There were reports of inappropriate behavior involving John Doe’s interactions and encounters with other students, which Principal House was made aware of by the facilitators. John Doe expressed his constant torment of victimization with

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).”

This case was a very significant ruling for special education evident with numerous studies positing that the ruling of this 1982 case was perhaps the most important special education decision by the Supreme Court and to this day, continues to have a profound effect on the education of students with disabilities. Additionally, this was the first time that the Supreme Court had to interpret portions of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 1990), which was then the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) as it relates to what constituted a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

Sumter County School District 17 is a public school district in South Carolina. T.H. is a student who qualifies for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Sumter County School is appealing the decision of the lower district court, who found that the school district did not provide TH with a Free Appropriate Public Education. The school is also appealing the district court’s findings, which verified that T.H’.s current placement at home was appropriate. The school argues that the home placement of T.H. was not the Least Restrictive Environment. The school district’s appeal further contends that they at least in part provided a FAPE for T.H. because he was making some educational gains during the time in question even though the school was not providing the amount of service indicated in T.H.’s Individualized Education Plan. The school also asserts that they remedied internal problems and were able to provide the full range of time and services require through T.H.’s IEP.

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Whereas, certain disputes exist concerning G’onna Jones’ educational program while a student in the District, which claims are described in the case styled G’onna J. b/n/f Nikki Anne R. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 077-SE-1115 (“Claim”);

For students with special education it is stated under IDEA that “with regards to school discipline, schools may consider each situation on a case-by-case basis when determining if a change of placement appropriate for a special education child who violates school education code” (Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students). The discipline process for students with disabilities in the special education program can be a difficult topic for most school districts. This paper will answer questions from the case scenario considering what should happen immediately to Charlie?, what services, if any, are provided to Charlie during his removal to an IAES?, and who needs to be contacted?. This paper will also consider the topic of if a manifestation determination review is held for Charlie answering questions on what disciplinary actions are permissible?, What, if, any, services will be provided to Charlie during the duration of the disciplinary action?, and finally what happens if Charlie’s parents appeal the manifestation determination?.

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.

Case laws that deal with Autism often argue that the needs of those with Autism are not being properly met, which has a serious influence on the mental and physical development of the individuals with Autism. One example of a case law in unethical practices of Autism is the Amanda J. v. Clark County case law that occurred in 2001. In this case law the parents of Amanda J. claimed that the school psychologists failed to notify them that their child may be dealing with Autism. Furthermore, the parents claimed that during the IEP process the school failed to involve and entirely inform them of the development of Amanda’s IEP. It was also stated that during the IEP process, Amanda’s mother requested copies of Amanda’s evaluations but the school failed to provide Amanda’s mother with the copies of those essential forms until the first IEP meeting concluded. When the court finalized this case law it was agreed that the school violated the requirements of the IDEA, due to the fact that they prevented Amanda’s parent from being fully included in the IEP process of their child. The court established that an appropriate IEP that accommodates the exceptional needs of the child could not be properly developed if the individuals who are most involved in the child’s life are not fully involved or able to participate in the development of the IEP

The last presented case discusses a child with Down's syndrome named Christy. Christy's parents tried to enroll her in a regular classroom when she was five, however, they refused to have her evaluated. Another two years later, her parents tried pushing her into a regular classroom setting without consent to have her evaluated. The school district requested a due process hearing to get ahold of an order granting an evaluation. During this process, Christy was enrolled in a Kindergarten class that had children with no disabilities. When she was evaluated, her evaluation showed how she functioned in the mentally handicapped range. The IEP tried to piece together a doable program for Christy. One suggestion proposed placing Christy in a self-contained

The role of legislation and legal regulations have played in ensuring that all children have access to high-quality services that support their individual development and learning began with that of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 where it was supreme court case that “extended equal educational opportunities to minority groups”, thus creating “the climate for advocacy for children with disabilities, and led to the emergence of the field of special education.” (Darragh, 2009, p.30) in which then led President John F. Kennedy to “believe that Americans had a moral and constitutional obligation to provide for the needs of a person with cognitive disabilities.” (Darragh, 2009, p.30) thus allowing the pavement for future legislation to help

Special education has faced many changes during the last century. During this time there have been many opinions on the way students with differences should be taught and treated. This paper will discuss the history of special education during the twentieth century. We will also discuss the laws associated with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Finally we will discuss the current and future challenges that the laws have on special education.

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities should be placed in a “least restrictive environment.” One of the main ideas of this act was to improve the learning experiences of students with disabilities by giving them learning opportunities outside of a special education classroom. The number of students with disabilities being placed in their general education classrooms is increasing more and more each year. The U.S Department of Education’s 27th annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2005) indicates that the number of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has risen to almost 50 percent. This is about a 17 percent increase from the 1997 U.S