ESE 601 WK 1 Historical Timeline

By FAITHE
  • T.R. v. Kingwood Township, 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000)

    T.R. v. Kingwood Township, 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000)
    Kingwood Township Board of Education proposed an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for the 1995-96 school year which N.R. was placed in a preschool class at the Kingwood School; the class was to comprise an equal number of disabled and non disabled children. The parents rejected the placement and enrolled N.R. at Village Montessori School, a private preschool, in September 1995. The parents agreed to pay Village Montessori School's tuition and provide for N.R.'s transportation.
  • Period: to

    Special Education Historical Events

    References
    Couvillon, M. A., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to know. Preventing School Failure, 62(4), 289. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1456400
    https://specialeducationlawyernj.com/special-education-law/landmark-cases-in-special-education-law/
    Photos
    https://www.google.com/searchq=board+of+education
  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. Re-1 (03/22/2017)

    Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. Re-1 (03/22/2017)
    Endrew F. (Drew), an autistic child in Douglas County, Colorado, showed severe and increasing behavioral problems from preschool through 4th grade. Dissatisfied with his lack of progress under his Individualized Education Program (IEP), his parents withdrew him from public school in 2010 and enrolled him in a private school specializing in serving autistic students. He made significant gains in the new school and is now a 17-year-old high-school student learning vocational skills.
  • G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, No. 14-1397 (3rd Cir. 2015)

    G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, No. 14-1397 (3rd Cir. 2015)
    This case clarified how to interpret IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations. The Court held that the IDEA’s statute of limitations
    creates a “discovery rule” approach, in which the statute begins to run on the date the parents knew or should have known of the FAPE violation, rather than an “occurrence rule” approach, wherein the
    statute of limitations period would begin to run on the actual date of the violation.