-
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The state is required to provide an education to all children aged 6-21 with intellectual disabilities of all ranges. Parents are now encouraged to participate in the educational decisions about their child. -
Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia
Now includes all children with disabilities, rather than just those with intellectual disabilities. Children now have a right to a "constructive education". -
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District
Students with disabilities are to be offered the chance to learn in a general education classroom before being placed in a separate classroom. Justification and documentation must be correct and in place to move a child to a separate class. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
First Supreme Court interpretation of PL 94-142. Ruling decided that an appropriate education is not the same as an optimal education. -
Danial R. R. v. State Board of Education
Court ruling decides that a separate classroom is best for students with severe disabilities. A two-part test was developed to determine if the student is appropriately placed and receiving the appropriate education. -
Schaffer v. Weast
Parents and/or the school district must provide proof that a child's IEP is appropriate or inappropriate. The party seeking relief is required to provide proof. -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
Parents are now allowed to represent their child in a court hearing. This also pushes parents to become more involved with their child's education. -
Forest Grove School District v. T. A.
The school district failed to accommodate the student, even though there was no record of disability. The court ruled that the public school district was to reimburse the family for the private school tuition. -
Doug C. v. Hawaii
The school district was holding the student's IEP meetings without a parent present to represent their child and their child's needs. -
A.C. v. Shelby County
The parents of the child exercised their rights outlined in the 504 plan. The school then retaliated when the principal filed false child abuse against the child's parents. -
F.H. v. Memphis City Schools
A child was abused in multiple ways by their aide. The school and parent attempted a settlement agreement, but the school backed out. The court ruled that the agreement is enforceable in court. -
Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Board of Education
A student was not properly accommodated after the school failed to assess their hearing impairment. The school consequently did not provide a FAPE for the student and they were unable to receive a proper education. -
Fry v. Napoleon Comm. School District
The school district refused a child to bring their service dog to school with them. The parents were told that they had not used their resources within the IDEA. -
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1
The parents argued that their child with autism and behavioral issues was not meeting his IEP goals. The Supreme Court stated that the school district was providing the bare minimum and that was not an appropriate education. -
M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union School District
A parent was provided an IEP for her child to agree to and sign. The school district then no longer allowed the parent to participate in the IEP meetings and did not provide a FAPE for the child.