Impaired Children Vs Pennsylvania 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.

The School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education, case happened through the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1985. Under the provisions of the Education of the Handicapped Act, the state and local public schools agencies must provide children with disabilities and their parents or guardians with the access for a proper education. The state must provide an appropriate safeguard that will be able to ensure free and sophisticated support inside the classroom for students who fall under the EHA category. Michael Panico was a handicapped man under the EHA, his poor performance and the school’s inability to handle Panico’s needs led his parents to have him change schools. The Massachusetts Department of Education

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

Throughout the ages, people with disabilities have been hidden away at homes or institutions and were often not educated. This was common practice and as such, when the education system was designed, children with disabilities were not even considered. Then, starting soon after the civil rights movement in the 50’s, a series of lawsuits was brought against school boards and the federal government took notice. Then the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was passed and these children were finally allowed the education they deserved. As time went

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.

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.”

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

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

A child with disabilities is a major focus in today’s education. Achieving my Bachelors in Special Education, I need to be aware of the need to ensure appropriate education for all children with disabilities. “The education of children with disabilities is a top national priority. Our nation’s special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), sets high standards for their achievement and guides how special help and services are made available in schools to address their individual needs (National Dissemination)”. This is my biggest challenge. I feel with the right tools and

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 1982, the Supreme Court decided Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley. A deaf student, named Amy Rowley enrolled in kindergarten in public school in Peekskill, New York. Amy’s parents met with school administrators to plan for her attendance and to determine what supplemental services would be necessary for her education. Amy was assigned a sign language interpreter for a short portion of her kindergarten year. After two weeks, the sign language interpreter reported that Amy did not need the services inside of the classroom. Once Amy fished her kindergarten year and started first grade, an IEP was prepared for Amy’s assistances. The IEP was provided to Amy and her parents that she would be kept in the

What the Brown decision provided was a means to challenge the meaning of, “separate but equal”, as it applied to public schooling opportunities for students with disabilities (Blanchett, Mumford, & Beachum, 2005). Before and after Brown, students with disabilities were not necessarily educated in public schools as there were no laws that mandated this. For the most part disabled students were educated in facilities that were separate from the “regular” school setting.

In K.M v. Tustin Unified School District (2013), the plaintiffs were high school students with hearing disabilities and received services associated with special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This eligibility implied that they were eligible for free appropriate public education (FAPE). The plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to a word for word transcription service by their school districts under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs had requested their schools to provide communication access real-time translation to enable them understand their teachers and fellow students without undue strain. Their requests were denied by school districts but they were offered alternative accommodations. The plaintiffs had unsuccessfully challenged the decision to deny the service in state administrative proceedings. Their claims were that the denial violated IDEA and title II of the ADA.

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.

On November 4th, 1998 the Cedar Rapids School District v. Garret F. was argued. The case was between Garret F. the student attending with a physical disability. This case came upon once Garret got denied rights to having a one-on-one nursing assistance to help him around the campus. The parents believe that the school should pay for the services.