Stay Put Case Analysis

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

The first key principle of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is that any student regardless of their disability is entitled to a free and appropriate public education. The term zero reject is commonly used to summarize this principle. An important component of zero reject is for school administrators to understand that the state is responsible for locating, identifying, and providing for students with disabilities from birth through age twenty-one. School officials play an important role in carrying out the state responsibility under the zero reject principle. This principle both implies and specifies the concept that no matter how severe the disability may seem, all children can learn, benefit from, and are entitled to a free and appropriate public education.

Background and Facts: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975. It required public schools to give equal educational opportunities for children who suffered from a disability. The school would work together with the child’s parents to form an educational plan. An important piece of this law was the ‘stay-put’ provision. During a dispute of a disabled child’s educational placement, the child was entitled to remain in their current setting until the matter was resolved.

This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County, when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended up using aliases by the names of John Doe, Jane Doe and son D.D. Doe as a deterrent from the public so the family would not endure any additional embarrassment, slander, and/or liable regarding the son’s handicap. The defendants of this case were

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 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.

So, that if I had any more concerns it would look like my child is the problem and not the school. Ms. Sterling has had several complaints against her from yelling at the students. So, why would the principal put my daughter in this class when there are two other classes, which the ZH class I heard nothing, but good things about. The principal did not want to change my daughter’s class from the beginning, but since I was persistent she made sure to make this a damaging move for my daughter. On two occasions I provided the principal with a copy of documentation from my daughter’s physician about her condition. On December 1, 2015 I provided the school with my daughter’s 504 accommodation. The next day my daughter was forced to hold it again and had another accident. My property taken from daughter, alter, and damaged. The school has violated my daughter’s civil rights as well as her educational rights. My daughter was taken into the office and forced to write a statement without my consent or knowledge. My daughter is now harassed on a daily basis for minor

There are six principles intended to guarantee the educational rights of students with disabilities as well as their parents under IDEA 2004. Included within the federal regulations of IDEA 2004 is a section called procedural safeguards. The purpose of the safeguards is to protect the rights of parents and their child with a disability, also, to provide families and school systems some measures for them to resolve disputes that may transpire (Friend, 2014, p. 15). All decisions that are made on behalf of the student with disabilities must include parental involvement and meet the requirements of the law. For instance, parents are required to provide written consent in order for their child to be assessed to determine if they have a disability.

With Disabilities Education Act." Focus On Exceptional Children43.2 (2010): 1-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, at approximately 9:15 a.m., during school, Mr. Jones (LEA), Mr. Overduin (Psychologist), Mr. Chaffee (Teacher), Austin Blotzer (Student), and Mrs. Kamey Blotzer (Parent) were in an Individual Education Plan (I.E.P.) at Eagle Summit Community Day School. It was reported to the parent that the meeting was being held to discuss the student’s placement and progress. At the beginning of the meeting the team introduced themselves and the Parent Procedural Safeguards were offered. As the meeting began to start Mr. Chaffee described the intentions of the meeting. It appeared at Mrs. Blotzer did not like the idea that the team was considering the students placement.

In-school suspension does not count as removal if the student can continue to progress in the general curriculum, receives the services described in the student’s IEP, and participates with non-disabled students to the same extent as in the student’s placement. If these provisions are met, then the in-school suspension does not count as a day. After 10 cumulative days, a change of placement might occur due to the manifestation determination hearing, which a school still must provide services. Finally, students with disabilities may not be expelled for the same length of time as a student without a disability. Instead, a student with disability is moved to an interim alterative educational setting for 45 school days for misconduct involving weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury. A hearing officer can, however, extend the number of days beyond 45(McKinney, 2012, p.

The need for parents' involvement in the transitioning of their children with disabilities is a crucial role of the parents to ensure that the rights of the kids as mandated by the Federal law on disabled persons adheres to, e.g., The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990 are consistently implemented (Austin, 2000). A Parent's participation in the transition process of the disabled children has been realized to vary significantly due to the various categories of disability. In cases of children with Learning disability, the parents tend to have less participation in their transition than any other impairment. Less participation is experienced because of special skills to handle the learning process, and also, the schools in which the kids are enrolled allocate fewer roles to the parents with some of the institutions viewing parents as ancillary stakeholders that only require essential

Throughout numerous elementary schools nationwide, various educational, mental, social, physical, and health concerns have been brought about. These concerns begin to emerge as a result of unjust or unwarranted instances that effect faculty, staff, and especially the student body in the elementary schools. These concerns have caused legal and federal cases to arise in order to resolve and correct the issues for the student body nationwide. There has been a tremendous amount of important, vital, and significant court cases regarding concerns in elementary schools about the health and well-being of students. One of the many important cases brought about in the school system is the case regarding a sixth- grade boy by the name of Jack McLaughlin.