Special Education Case Analysis

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

Your right it was a huge victory for special needs in 1975 with the enactment of Public Law 94-142, it also showed that it was now noticed how important it is for even these children to receive an education. What I believe that set the way for the Public Law 94-142 was section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to Special School District of St. Louis County (SSD) (n.d.) this act was set into place to protect the civil and constitutional rights of people with disabilities. The main idea behind this law was to define disability, it defined it as being anyone with a mental or physical issue. The Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) although listed categories of disabilities, it did not define disability. What this

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 very first to court verdict that advised there was a boundary to the resources that exceptional children can anticipate but they suggested that children with disabilities deserve more than an optimum education. Zirkel (2008) further argued that the court decision such case interpret the meaning of FAPE. He mentioned the initial purpose of the act was to give accessibility to public school and special education specifically, the connotation of FAPE was mainly technical (Zirkel, 2008). The court, however, further held that the substantive standard was that the IEP be fairly calculated to allow the child to obtain educational benefits (Zirkel, 2008); in reaching this substantive standard, the court overruled the higher standards of equal opportunity, self-sufficiency, and maximization. Furthermore, most of the lower courts were instructed to apply this standard with regard to school

Summary judgment for defendant-school district in an action in which plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by denying plaintiff-minor a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in his least restrictive environment (LRE) is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the LRE requirement of IDEA applies to extended school year placements as it does to regular school‐year placements; 2) the district court erred in determining that defendant met the LRE requirement when it offered plaintiff-minor

There have also been landmark court cases like Brown v Board of Education and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania (PARC) which as a result set the wheels in motion for special education reform. The Education for Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was amended and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education ACT (IDEA) in 1990, has had the greatest impact on special education in public schools. When the law was originally passed in 1975 it required all school districts that accepted federal funds to provide disabled students, ages 5-21, equal access to an education in the least restrictive (LRE) setting possible. Schools were to also disperse funds equally among all students and provide free of charge, the necessary

The case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), found that education was an important function. The courts viewed education as playing an important role in the future of the United States and since states chose to provide it, education then is a right that must be available to all on equal terms ( (Murdick, Gartin, & Fowler, 2014). The question of equal terms has been an uphill battle for families that have children with disabilities. There were many acts that addressed educational issues of children with disabilities. The elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 was created to improve education for children that were disadvantaged and it expanded funding. 1974 Education of the Handicapped

This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered.

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.

Until that time, many states had laws that excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school. These included children who were blind, deaf and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded." Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational services. Having a disability does not automatically qualify a student for special education services under the IDEA. The disability must result in the student needing additional or different services to participate in school. For example, a child who is diagnosed autistic. Children with disabilities who qualify for special education are also automatically protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and under the Americans with Disabilities Act (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.