-
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Petitioners v. AMY ROWLEY, by her parents, ROWLEY et al. Respondent No. 80-1002 U.S. Supreme Court
The Court rendered their opinion regarding IDEA and, FAPE mandates. The court’s opinion; IDEA requires that all proposed special education be reasonable to the students to receive benefits. The question aroused as to how much is sufficient under the IDEA FAPE mandate. 1st the court stated that FAPE must be unique to the child’s handicap or needs through an IEP. 2nd the court deemed that all students are unique all children considered individually.
https://massadvocates.org/rowley/ -
BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE, et.al., Petitioners v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Respondent No. 84-433 U.S. Supreme Court
The court deemed that parents may be reimbursed for private school expenses. The court decision stood the position that school districts may be required to reimburse parents for tuition and other private school expenses. This decision was based on the school district having an inadequate or inappropriate IEP; school district failed to offer the proper FAPE mandates. Parent must prove private school was more adequate and appropriate for child.
https://massadvocates.org/burlington/ -
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) HONIG, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. DOE, et al. No. 86-728
The court addressed the IDEA’s stay-put provision, explaining that when Congress enacted the stay-put its intentions where to strip the schools authority to exclude disabled students from the schools.
The court noted that the IEP is the center of the IDEA’s centerpiece to deliver quality educational system. It also addressed the importance of the parental participation in both the development of the IEP and its effectiveness.
https://massadvocates.org/honig/
