-
Board of Education vs Rowley Stance Description
School: A deaf Student, Amy Rowell, was provided with a hearing aid as mandated in her IEP. The interpreter reported that Amy didn't need him. School viewed hearing aid, FAPE.
Parents: In the IEP, a hearing aid only was mentioned. The parents felt that denial of sign language interpreter was a direct violation of FAPE.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. (2009). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson -
Court Ruling- Rowley Case
The Act did not require specific services and the school wrongly interpreted free and appropriate education. Providing a hearing aid was not enough as it did not meet the needs and allow Amy to access the curriculum. -
My Thoughts
Rowley v Board of Education has supported special education law because of the result. The school is responsible for providing appropriate support, not all support. in my opinion, this should prompt parents to look at what they can provide at home or through other avenues. -
Burlington v Mass Board of Ed. - Court Ruling
School districts should reimburse parents when a free and appropriate education can not be provided and private education can meet the child's needs. Parents were reimbursed for a specific portion of private education. -
Burlington Stance Description
School: The school felt that the parent failed to voice financial concerns over the placement of the student in a specialized program.
Parents:The school was unable to meet the needs of Burlington's specific learning needs.A specialized setting was needed that the school could not provide.
Reference
Jr. Powell, L. F., Supreme Court Case Files Powell Papers 10-1984. Washington and Lee University School of Law. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts -
My Thoughts
This case supports special education because the results stated that if a school cannot meet the needs of a student after exhausting all options, parents can get financial reimbursement for private school if it meets the needs of their child. -
Honig vs Doe Stance Description
School:
Two students with disabilities were involved in a dispute. After being taunted, Doe responded by choking the student and kicking out a window. He was sent to Principals' office where he was suspended.
Parents:
Does mom was informed while her son was suspended that it would be indefinitely. -
Honig vs Doe Court Ruling
Link text
Supreme court ruled that the California school board, when it suspended a student indefinitely had violated the Education for all Handicapped Children Act. Requires that measures should be taken prior to expulsion. Stay Put should be carried out to reduce the states from excluding special education students. Congress stated that parents should be participate in the IEP process.
Reference:
specialeducationlawnj.com -
My thoughts
This case supported special education because it reiterated that the "stay put" procedure needs to be followed. In-school suspension does not count as removal if the student still has IEP services.
This reduced the states unilateral power to exclude special education students.
