Larry P. V. Rile Case Analysis

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.

Placement decisions related to students with disabilities is an issue that arises from providing a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and the least restrictive environment (LRE). While FAPE and LRE are not new requirements, the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) continues to be open to interpretation and implementation of the mandates (McGovern, 2015). A student’s least restrictive environment is the setting where the student can be integrated with his non-disabled peers. IDEA requires that students with disabilities be educated in the most integrated, least restrictive environment (Carson, 2015); however, this is where the grey area enters. The interpretation of what the least restrictive environment is, depends

During the early years of implementation of IDEA, schools and agencies made mistakes when determining who to serve through special education. “Sometimes schools placed students in special education based on a single test, administered and placed students using tests that were not reliable or valid, or used tests that were discriminatory” (Yell, 2016, p. 58). A procedure for a clear, accurate, and nondiscriminatory helps to ensure that schools do not repeat these early mistakes.

In the case of Larry P. versus Riles, 1972, it was determined the intelligence tests were used to illegally place six African American students in classes for students diagnosed as mentally retarded. The courts found the use of these tests to placed minority students in special education violated their rights under 1964 Civil Rights Act. The tests were considered culturally and racially biased and did not consider the family background of the students. The courts halted all use of these type test and their use to place minority students in special

If a student is both an English language learner and has a learning disability, their educational needs become inherently more complex. However, through research on the needs of English language learners with disabilities, on various case laws, and by participating in lectures on the topics of English language learners and students with learning disabilities, I have come to a clearer understanding of these unique needs as well as the processes necessary to identify, evaluate, and work with these students. Prior to the 1960s, both English language learners and students with disabilities were often segregated from their peers, given inadequate instruction, and inappropriately assessed (Ortiz, Woika, 2013). This began to change when, with the holding of Brown vs. board of Education (1954), a principle for equal educational opportunities for all students was brought to fruition (Yell, 1998). After this decision, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 prohibited the discrimination of people on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of federally assisted programs. Further, to

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.

Dunn argued that the identification and placement in special education of socioculturally deprived children with mild learning problems was of concern because of the nature of these settings, the questionable benefits of these placements and the detrimental effects of labeling. Since 1968, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has received and investigated complaints associated with placement of minority students for mental retardation and serious emotional disturbance; equal access of minority students to pre-referral programs, lack of access to minority students to general education programs and issues associated with students with limited English proficiency.

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.”

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

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.

Guardians of six African American elementary school children, in San Francisco filed a suit against the California Department of Education in 1971. The offended party represented a class of African American children who had been placed – or later in the future be placed in a special education class called EMR “educable mentally retarded.” The EMR classed was designed for children who were found to be incapable of learning in a regular class. Keeping them from developing the necessary skills for them to return to a regular school environment. The offended parties challenged the process of the standardized individual intelligence tests. Expressing that it was one-sided against African American children, which can cause an increased socioeconomic

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.

Disproportionate identification of minority students in special education is a major concern in schools today. This paper describes the issues in the assessment process with minority students and how we have arrived at a situation where minorities are being misdiagnosed into special education programs. Additionally, several legal cases are mentioned which show numerous actions and rulings that have tried to correct the disproportionate identification in special education. Some of the legal cases discussed include Larry P. v Riles, Diana v. State Board of Education, and Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School, which all significantly impacted special education today. Additionally, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act has enforced

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.

Funding for special education students is, and historically, has always been, a complicated issue. Most people believe the federal government funds special education in the United States. “Understanding Special Education Funding” (2009), states that, on average, most states estimate that the federal government provides less than 15% of the money needed to fund special education services. This, in turn, leaves local school systems responsible for funding the remaining portion of special education services. This paper examines the history of special education laws and funding, the wide variance of funding that exists from state to state, and the problems created by a lack of funding.