-
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Colombia (Both Party's Stance)
On one side of the case (Mills), seven children were being represented by attorneys to argue the idea that all children have an entitled right to an education, regardless of having a disability.
On the opposing side of the argument, the Board of Education of the District of Colombia denied these seven students (Mills) enrollment in their district, arguing that they did not have the monetary resources needed to serve these particular students with disabilities. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Colombia (Court's Final Ruling)
The federal district court of Washington D.C. ruled in favor of Mills. The court's final ruling, that the school district could not deny students with disabilities on the basis of not having enough money to support them. A year after this case was ruled in favor of Mills, Section 504 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was passed. It is fair to say landmark cases like this played an influential importance in future cases, and the eventual acts that would pass. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Colombia (How the Ruling Supports Students With Disabilities)
This case's ruling on behalf of Mills, supported students with disabilities by defending these students who were being denied their right to a free education based on the lack of the school district's monetary resources. Without the ruling of this case or one similar to it, more students with disabilities may have continued being denied an education based on lack of school funding and/or resources. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Colombia (Link to Another Resource Pertaining to the Case)
Below is a link to a video that provides some more information on the case:
Mills vs. Board -
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education (Both Party's Stance)
Initially a local court ruled that the Burlington School District must reimburse the Panico's for the costs of transportation and tuition accumulated from Michael's new private school. The parents changed his school on the basis that the Burlington School District's recommendation for Michael's placement into another district school wasn't appropriate. The Burlington School Committee in return appealed the local court's decision, arguing the placement was appropriate based on Michael's needs. -
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education (Final Court Ruling)
The Burlington School Committee (BSC) won their first appeal at the district court level, reversing the original ruling that ordered the school district reimburse Michael's parents. His parents at a later date were ordered to pay back the reimbursement. The U.S. Court of Appeals (USCAP) eventually gave a final ruling on the case, against the BSC. The USCAP ruled the district court didn't properly evaluate Michael's IEP that was in question and as a result held the BSC as liable for all expenses. -
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education (How the Ruling Supports Students With Disabilities)
This case means the world to students with disabilities and their families, because it highlights the standard public school districts must use, to ensure an appropriate education for all of their students through proper accommodation. The ruling also empowered parents of students with a disability to make tough decisions like transferring to a private school, when the public schools aren't meeting their child's needs. More parents can rest assured knowing school districts can be held liable. -
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education (Link to Another Resource Pertaining to the Case)
Below is a link to a slide show sharing more details on the case:
Burlington v. Department of Ed. -
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four (Carter's Stance)
On behalf of Shannon Carter, her parents argued that the IEP recommended by Florence County School District Four was not a proficient enough plan for their child. The IEP suggested by Florence County school officials concerned Carter's parents, they did not believe the academic needs of their child were being met. As a result, Carter's parents placed her in a private school. The Carter's sued Florence County Schools for the cost of their child's tuition for sending her to the private school. -
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four (Florence County's Stance)
Florence County's counter argument was based on two notions. The first, Florence County argued that four months of progress (accomplished in one school year) was an appropriate measure of achievement for Carter's IEP. The second notion was that the private school (Trident Academy) that Carter was transferred to was not on a pre-approved list of schools that could have substantiated Carter's case. -
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four (Court's Final Ruling)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision favoring Carter. Although Trident Academy was not on the pre approved list of schools that parents could unilaterally send their child to. Trident Academy proved to be adequate enough when it was found that Shannon Carter made significant progress of three grade levels in the three years she attended. Surpassing more than double the amount of progress expected by Florence County School District's recommended IEP. -
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four (How the Ruling Supports Students With Disabilities)
This ruling supports students with disabilities by reenforcing the idea that disabled students are able to excel academically too. Often times, disabled students are not expected to be able to achieve a high academic standard, or grow as quickly as mainstream students are expected and able to grow. But as proven in the story of this case, when students with disabilities are correctly accommodated in the school setting, they are just as capable as any other students to learn. -
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four (Link to article)
Below is a link to a presentation further detailing the case:
Carter Vs. Florence County School District Four