-
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the segregation of students by race was unconstitutional. Children did not have have the opportunity for equal education. Also used for arguing that children with disabilities should have an equal opportunity as well. -
Hobson v. Hansen
Grouping or "tracking" systems discriminated against the poor and minority students and was also found to be unconstitutional. This did not give them the opportunity for equal education. -
Diana v. State Board of Education
Students could not be placed in a special education class based on their IQ tests, which are culturally biased. To reflect the students' cultural heritage, the verbal test items were to be revised. Group-administered IQ tests were also prohibited to put children in classes/programs for individuals with intellectual disability. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State MUST guarantee a free public education to all children with intellectual disability ages 6-21 no matter the degree of impairment or associated disabilities. Students were to be placed in the most integrated environment and parents had the right to participate in educational decisions affecting their children. State also were to make an effort to locate and serve all students with intellectual disability. -
Larry P v. Riles
A landmark case parallel to the Diana suit. African-American students couldn't be placed in classes for children with mild intellectual disability just because of the basis of IQ tests found to be cultural and racially biased. The court instructed school officials to create an assessment process that wouldn't discriminate against minority children. -
Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia
Extended the Pennsylvania desicion to include all children with disabilities and established the constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to a public education no matter their functional level. Students have a right to an education that meets their needs along with specialized instruction. Presumed absence of relating resources is not a valid reason for failing to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. -
Lau v. Nichols
A milestone case in the field of bilingual education. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that noted "there isn't equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, books, teachers, and curriculum, for students who don't understand English are not getting a meaningful education." This decision significantly affected the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. -
Tatro v. State of Texas
U.S. Supreme Court held that catheterization qualified as a related service under PL 94-142. Catheterization wasn't considered an exempted medical procedure, because it could be performed by a health care aide/ school nurse. Court specified that only those services that allow a student to benefit from a special education qualify as related services. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
Court addressed the problem of what constitutes an "appropriate" education for a student with hearing impairments making satisfactory education progress. Supreme Court said that an appropriate education doesn't specifically mean an education that will allow for the absolute possible achievement. Students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn. -
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District
Placement in a general education classroom with aids and services must be offered to a student with a disability prior to considering more segregation placements. The student shouldn't be excluded from a general education classroom just because curriculum, services, or other practices would demand modification. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a segregated class was an appropriate placement for a student with Down syndrome. Court established a two-prong test for determining compliance with the least restrictive environment mandate for students with severe disabilities. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v Garret F.
U.S. Supreme Court went into detail and clarified the concept of related services. Concluded that intensive and continuous school health care services necessary for a student to attend school. -
Schaffer v. Weast
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling confronting the issue of whether the parents or school district bears the burden of proof in a due process hearing. The parents must prove that their child's IEP is inappropriate or whether the school district must prove that the IEP is appropriate. The court ruled that the burden of proof is placed on the party searching relief. -
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
The issue in this Supreme Court case is whether parents are able to recover the professional fees of an educational consultant who provided services during legal proceedings. The Court ruled that parents aren't entitled to reimbursement for the cost of experts because only attorney fees are addressed an IDEA. -
Winkleman v. Parma City School District
By unanimous vote, The Court affirmed the right of parents to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases. The ruling was seen as an expansion of parental involvement and the definition of a free appropriate public education.