Historic Timeline on Landmark Cases Ashley Wilson, ESE601:Students with Exceptionalities in the School Setting, Dr. Wellner, March 31, 2018
-
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children , (PARC) vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvanie
The plaintiffs of this case were PARC, a non-profit organization with goals of advancing the interests of citizens with Intellectual Disabilities in Pennsylvania. They believed that the citizens they were representing (families with children ages 6-21) were denied a free education in the school district. They also argued that students were denied the due process allowed to them, and that the children could benefit from the education they were missing out on (Li, L., 2013). -
PARC vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The defendants in this case were the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the secretary of education for Pennsylvania, state board of education, the acting secretary of public welfare of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 12 school districts of Pennsylvania. They relied on a state law that stated any child could be denied access to a school if they had not reached a mental age of five by the time they enter 1st grade. They also argued that students with intellectual disabilities were uneducable. -
PARC vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
This court case enabled students with Intellectual Disabilities the right to receive a free and appropriate education. The school could no longer use statutes that they thought applied like §13-1375: relief of obligation to educate children found to be uneducable and untrainable in the public schools (Tucker, A.D. & Cobbs, D., 2014, August). It was one of the first cases that challenged laws that made it impossible for students with disabilities to go to school. -
PARC vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The ruling for the court case was made in favor of PARC. This ruling stated that the school district had to admit children with Intellectual Disabilities into schools to receive a free and appropriate education. They also stated that the school district could not predetermine the educability of students, and that they needed to admit these students into general education classes whenever possible (Henley, M., Ramsey, R.S., & Algozzine, R., 2009.). They also need to provide preschool programs. -
Link to Digital Storytelling: PARC vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
-
Luke S. & Hans, S. vs Nixe et al (Louisiana)
The plaintiffs of this case (Luke S & Hans S-pseudonyms for two seven year old boys and their parents felt that the school district of Louisiana did not provide a timely evaluation for providing special education. The parents felt that their children would have qualified for special education, and would have been helped if they had been tested in a timely manner. At that time, the school district was required to evaluate the students 60 days after receiving parent permission. -
Luke S. & Hans, S. vs Nixe et al (Louisiana)
The defendants in this case was the school district of Louisiana. They had just gone through a transition from "university testing teams" that were independent of the school district to the district being responsible for evaluating students with special needs. The district was aware of at least 1,000 children who were backlogged in their system (though later estimates were closer to 10,000). The school district under advice from the attorney entered a consent decree to appease the plaintiffs. -
Luke, S. & Hans, S. vs Nixe et al (Louisiana)
The ruling from the consent decree made several stipulations. The school district had to ensure the students who were backlogged were all tested in a timely manner, and were given three years to get the numbers under control. The school district also had to make $1,037,000 available for evaluation and overtime hours to accomplish the evaluations. This decree also stipulated that a referral to special education was the last resort instead of the first resource that teachers turned to. -
Luke, S. & Hans, S. vs Nixe et al (Louisiana)
This court case emphasized the needs for interventions prior to sending children to a special education evaluation. Many students were misplaced due to regulations of what qualified a special needs evaluation before this case. Another thing that came of this was the need to limit the number of students a school psychologist could work with, and the need for qualified personnel to perform the evaluations. -
Link for Luke, S. and Hans, S. vs Nixe et al
This link provides a very brief synopsis of the Luke S. case. It has more than just this case, but it includes this case as well. There was very limited research on this case.
https://brainmass.com/file/1556221/Special_Developments_in_Special_Education.doc -
Daniel R. R. vs State Board of Education
The plaintiffs for this case were Daniel's parents. He was six years old at the time, had down syndrome and mental retardation. He was at a 2-3 year old developmental level and less than a 2 year old communication level. His mother wanted him to be mainstreamed in the prekindergarten program in the school district. They did for some time, met again and felt that it was not the appropriate placement for him, and moved him back to the special needs class. His parents felt that violated his rights. -
Daniel R. R. vs State Board of Education
The defendants were the El Paso school district. They had mainstreamed Daniel in the prekindergarten class half of the day, and the other half in the special education class. He also participated in recess with the general education students. They placed him back in the special needs class to provide an appropriate education for him since he was not making any learning gains in the prekindergarten class. He also needed constant attention, and the curriculum would have had to be altered for him. -
Daniel R. R. vs State Board of Education
The first ruling came from the committee, and determined that the school district was right in placing him back in the special education was the right placement for him since it was the appropriate place for him. The parents were unsatisfied with this ruling, and appealed it to the district court. They were able to make changes to the documents provided to the first committee. They did not change anything, and the district court agreed with the committee on the ruling. -
Daniel, R. R. vs State Board of Education
The parents proceeded to keep appealing the decisions of the court until it went before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision was made in favor of the school district. They were within the right of the EHA, and was correct in not mainstreaming a child if they were not making progress. This led to the definition of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). -
Daniel, R. R. vs State Board of Education
This case made it possible to understand the language of EDA (later called IDEA). Children with special needs are afforded the same opportunities of children without special needs to a free and appropriate education. Mainstreaming a child in a general education classroom is not always the appropriate location for them, no matter how much we want them to be with their peers. -
Link for Daniel R.R. vs State Board of Education
This link provides a synopsis of the court case and the decision that was made as a result.
https://www.sutori.com/item/1999-daniel-r-r-vs-state-board-of-education-court-case-8-daniel-r-r-was-a -
References
-Disability Justice. (2018). The right to education. Retrieved from disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education. Accessed March 30, 2018. -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2018, March). Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania#The_Defendants. -
References
-Tucker, A.D. & Cobbs, D. (2014, August). PARC v. commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from file:///C:users/Ashley%20Wilson/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/PARC_v._Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania.pdf. Accessed 2018, March 30.
-Louie, L. (2013, December). PARC v commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. board of education, D.C. Retrieved from www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/. Accessed 2018, March 30. -
References
-Taylor, J.M., Tucker, J.A., & Galagan, J.E. (1986, January). The Luke s. class action suit: a lesson in system change. Exceptional Education. 52(4) pp376-382.
-Kids Together Inc. (1995-2009). Daniel r.r. v. state board of education, 874F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1989). Retrieved from www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_fiels/daniel.htm. Accessed 2018, March 31.