-
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
Ended segregation for white and black students and used to argue that children with disabilities could not be excluded from public education. -
Hobson v. Hansen
Tracking and grouping students based on national tests that are biased and unconstitutional discriminating against poor and minor children denying them equal education opportunity. -
Diana v. State Board of Education
Students must be tested in their primary language and in English and cannot be placed in special education classes on IQ tests that are culturally biased. Verbal test are revised to reflect students' culture and group IQ tests cannot place children in programs for intellectual disabilities. -
Mills v. Board of Education, District of Colombia
Giving children with exceptionalities the right to a public education regardless of their functional level giving them the right to a constructive education matching their needs including special instructions. Failing to provide appropriate education services because of the absence of financial resources is not a valid reason and due process safeguards were established to protect the child's rights and include parental notification. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Free public education for all children with intellectual disabilities ages 6-21 regardless of their degree of disability. Students are to be placed in the most integrated environment and allowing parents the right to participate in educational decisions affecting their children. -
Larry P. v. Riles
African-American students could not be placed in classes for children with disabilities just because of their culture or race. Courts instructed schools to develop an assessment process that would not discriminate against minor children. Failure to comply prohibited the use of IQ tests for placing African-American students in classes for children with disabilities. Applies only to the state of California. -
Lau v. Nichols
Bilingual education. No equality in treatment when all students have the same faculty, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum including the students that do not understand English. Courts did not specify a method that had to be used for non-English-speaking or limited-English-speaking students, just required that school offer special language programs in order to comply with equal educational opportunities. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 1975-1997
Assistance for specific groups of individuals for those with special needs or disabilities. Provided educational benefits, opportunities, and rights to children and adults with disabilities. Viewed as a "Bill of Rights" for children with exceptionalities and their families. -
Tatro v. State of Texas
Catheterization qualified as a related service because it was not considered an exempted medical procedure as it could be performed by a health care aid or the school nurse. Only services that allowed a student to benefit from a special education qualify as a related service. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
Addresses the issue of what is appropriate education for students with hearing impairments to make satisfactory educational progress. An appropriate education does not mean an education that allows for maximum achievement but students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn. -
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District
Offering students placement in general education classrooms with supplemental aids and services prior to considering segregated placements. Cannot exclude a student from a general education just because a curriculum, service, or practice would require modification. Excluding a student from learning in a general education classroom has to be justified and provide documentation. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
Preference for integrated placement viewed secondary to the need for appropriate education. Courts established a two-part test to determine compliance with LRE for students with disabilities. Step one with determining if the student can benefit from the general education classroom through supplemental aids and services. Step two determining if the student has been integrated through the maximum extent appropriate. Successful compliance with both fulfills a school's obligation under federal law. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Intensive and continuous school health care services are necessary for a student to attend school, if not by a physician, qualify as a related service. -
Schaffer v. Weast
Whether it is the parents or the schools' responsibility for proof in a due process hearing. Should the parent acting on their child's behalf prove that their child's IEP is inappropriate or should the school prove that the IEP is appropriate. Courts ruled that proof is placed on the party seeking relief. -
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
Whether parents are able to recover professional fees of an education consultant who provided services during legal proceedings. Parents are not entitled to reimbursement because only attorney fees are addressed in IDEA. -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The right of parents to represent their child in IDEA related cases. Expanding parental involvement and defining a free appropriate public education. IDEA conveys enforceable rights to parents and their children. -
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
Tuition reimbursement for a student with learning disabilities and ADHD as well as depression who were never eligible for special education services or received any services through the school. Parents removed their children and enrolled them in private schools, seeking reimbursement from school district expenses. Regardless the student previously received services from the public school IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private school education when appropriate.