-
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The Rowley family met with the hendrick Hudson Central School District regarding accommodation for their hearing impaired daughter. They requested a sign language interpreter in conjunction with the use of a FM hearing aid. The school district refused the request after consulting with the school district Committee on the Handicapped. -
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The School districts committee on the Handicapped ruled the student did not need an interpreter. The independent examiner found the child was making academic and social progress.The District believed the ACHA did not state specific services for a disabled student. -
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The US Supreme Court ruled the EHA law provides for the development of a handicapped child's full potential not just access to an education. Justice Rehnquist focused on the words "free appropriate public education means special education and related services. As a result each child will have an individualized education plan developed with services specific to their academic need. -
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
This case is important in supporting the needs of students with disabilities by requiring personalized instruction with supportive services to help the student reach their full potential with the development of an Individualized Education Program for each child. A formal process was developed as a result of this case. -
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
-
Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 305
Doe, an emotionally disturbed special education student, was suspended for choking another student and damaging school property. The five day suspension was later extended indefinitely by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Placement Committee with a recommendation of expulsion.Doe filed suit against SFUSD and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction for violation of EHA (IDEA) "stay put" provision. -
Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 305
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to create a "dangerous exception to the "stay put" provision. The Court also found the "stay put" provision in the law prevents schools from excluding special needs students, especially emotionally disturbed students from school. The Court noted school districts have available means to respond to dangerous students such as time outs, detention, and suspensions of up to ten days. -
Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 305
Honig v Doe supports the needs of students with disabilities by removing a means schools used to unilaterally exclude disabled students, especially disturbed students. the case also provides school districts with a guide for dealing with students deemed dangerous. -
Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 305
Honig, the Superintendent of Public Education, filed for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. He claimed the Ninth District Court failed to consider other case law regarding "dangerous exception" to the "stay put" provision. Mr. Honig also noted the trial court order directing the states to provide direct services when the local education agency fails to places an undue burden on the state. -
Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 305
Osborne, A. G. (2001). Discipline of special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 513–538. -
Doug C v Hawaii (12-15079)
The special education coordinator held the IEP meeting without the parent, child or representative from Horizon 's Academy on November 9, 2009. The school district felt it had made several efforts to accommodate the parent and rescheduled the meeting several times. The annual review date of November 13, 2009 was quickly approaching. -
Doug C v Hawaii (12-15079)
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled having a parent/guardian present at the IEP meeting takes precedence over staff schedules and the deadline for the completion of the IEP. Failure to a parent/guardian in attendance violated the procedural requirement of IDEA and invalidates the IEP. -
Doug C v Hawaii (12-15079)
This historical ruling supports the needs of students with disabilities by stressing the importance of parent participation the the development of a child's IEP. The child's IEP will not lapse in the event a meeting is not held by the annual review date. -
-
Doug C v Hawaii (12-15079)
In this case, the father of a special education child could not attend child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting due to illness. The father requested an alternate date, which the school declined. The father filed for a special education due process hearing against the State of Hawaii Department of Education due to the IEP meeting held in his absence.